FEMA

Mitigation Assessment Team Report

Midwest Floods of 2008 

in Iowa and Wisconsin

Building Performance Observations, Recommendations, 

and Technical Guidance

FEMA P-765 / October 2009 
In response to the 2008 Midwest floods, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) deployed a Mitigation Assessment Team 

(MAT) to evaluate and assess the damages caused by the riverine flooding 

in Iowa and southern Wisconsin. This report documents the MAT’s 

observations, conclusions, and recommendations on the performance 

of buildings and other structures impacted by the flooding. The MAT 

included FEMA Headquarters and Regional Office staff, representatives 

from other federal agencies and academia, and experts from the design 

and construction industry. 

The conclusions and recommendations 

in this report are intended to provide 

decision makers with information and 

technical guidance that can be used to 

reduce future flood damage.

Downtown Cedar Rapids, Iowa
M I T I G A T I O N A S S E S S M E N T T E A M R E P O R T

Midwest Floods 

of 2008 in Iowa and 

Wisconsin

Building Performance Observations, 

Recommendations, and Technical Guidance

FEMA P-765 / October 2009

FEMA
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

Executive Summary

Manuel A. Perotin

Mike Robinson

Chapter 1

Stacy Robinson

Julia Moline

Jacquelyn Nicholson

Chapter 2

Amit Mahadevia

Phillip Grankowski

Wallace A. Wilson

Chapter 3

David L. Conrad

Larry Buss

Greg Gomez

Amit Mahadevia

Manuel A. Perotin

John Van de Lindt

Chapter 4

Julia Moline

George McKinnon

Mark Elliott

Dave Low

Jacquelyn Nicholson

Daniel Zell

Chapter 5

Stacy Robinson

Chapter 6

All

Chapter 7 

All

Team Leader

Chris Hudson, FEMA HQ

Team Manager

Manuel A. Perotin, PE, PBS&J

Team Members

Jack Anderson, FEMA HQ

Marcus Barnes, FEMA HQ

Larry Buss, PE, CFM, USACE

David L. Conrad, PE, PBS&J

Mark Elliott, PE, PBS&J

Claudette Fetterman, FEMA HQ

Phillip Grankowski, International Code Council

Greg Gomez, AIA, URS Corporation

Mike Klitzke, PE, CFM, FEMA Disaster Assistance 

Employee

Eric Letvin, PE, Esq., CFM, URS Corporation

Dave Low, PE, D.K. Low & Associates

Amit Mahadevia, URS Corporation

George McKinnon, CCM, PBS&J

Julia Moline, EIT, CFM, Dewberry

Jacquelyn Nicholson, PE, PBS&J

Robert Patten, FEMA Disaster Assistance Employee

Mike Robinson, CFM, PBS&J

Stacy Robinson, AICP, CFM, PBS&J

Mike Salmon, PE, Institute for Business and Home 

Safety

Rachel Sears, FEMA HQ

John van de Lindt, PhD, Colorado State University

Wallace A. Wilson, PE, CFM, W.A. Wilson Consulting 

Services, LLC

David Zaika, FEMA HQ

Daniel Zell, CFM, D.WRE, Dewberry

Technical Editor: Suzanne Nicholson, Dewberry

Publication Designer: Wanda Rizer, Consultant

Graphic Artist: Mike Robinson, CFM, PBS&J

Chapter Leaders and Authors

Team Members

Members of the Mitigation Assessment Team
MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT i

Executive Summary

In June 2008, much of the midwestern United States received over 

12 inches of rainfall as several storm systems sequentially impacted 

the region. The Midwest had experienced wet conditions for several 

months prior to the precipitation experienced in June; therefore, 

the June rains fell upon saturated soils resulting in runoff that 

directly flowed into streams. Resulting stream depths reached historic 

highs across the Midwest, particularly in many areas of Iowa and 

southern Wisconsin.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Mitigation Directorate deployed a Mitigation 

Assessment Team (MAT) to Iowa and Wisconsin. The purpose of the MAT was to assess damages to residential and commercial buildings and critical facilities as a result of the 2008 Midwest 

floods. This report presents the MAT’s field observations, a general assessment of mitigation programs within FEMA and their application in Iowa and Wisconsin, and subsequent conclusions and 

recommendations.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ii MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

Overall Impact of the 2008 Midwest Floods 

In Iowa, numerous communities experienced flood crests exceeding historic levels, and some areas flooded well outside of the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain (also known as the 100-year 

floodplain). Billions of dollars in damage occurred as homes, businesses, and critical facilities 

were inundated. In Cedar Rapids, a flood crest more than 12 feet higher than the previous record 

flooded areas well outside of the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain, inundating an area of over 

9 square miles. In Iowa City, floodwater affected residential neighborhoods, the University of Iowa 

campus, and other areas. 

In Wisconsin, the Rock, Kickapoo, and Baraboo Rivers experienced flooding above record flood 

stage at multiple locations, causing extensive damage. As homes and roads flooded, residents were 

forced to evacuate. Sanitary sewer systems experienced high inflow and infiltration, and sewer 

backups were reported in many critical facilities. Several flooded manufacturing facilities were 

forced to lay off workers.

Information provided in this report illustrates the extent of ground saturation prior to and during the spring months, the level of precipitation measured during the month of June, and the 

counties in Iowa and Wisconsin that subsequently received federal disaster declarations. The 

report also includes timelines of the flooding in Iowa and Wisconsin, outlining and detailing 

key events in each state along with the estimated flood recurrence interval for several locations 

visited by the MAT. The field observations detail how the majority of the areas visited experienced a flood that exceeded the 1-percent-annual-chance, and several locations even exceeded 

the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood (also known as the 500-year flood). 

Damage Assessment Observations

Several types and causes of flooding occurred during the 2008 floods, including: 

n Greater than expected river crests and inundation areas

n Backup through storm and sanitary sewers

n Underground tunnel flooding 

n High-velocity flows

Thousands of homes and facilities that were prepared for one type or cause of flooding were impacted by another. 

The damage to both new and existing single- and multi-family residences were evaluated. Although 

most of the damage resulted from slowly rising inundation, damages in a few locations were the 

result of high-velocity flows, particularly in or near the floodway and/or near breached or overtopped levees. The MAT also observed several examples of residential elevation and acquisition 

projects funded through FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs. Acquisition projects, in 

particular, were noted for their effectiveness in avoiding damages to property and the potential 

for loss of life.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT iii

Damages observed at critical and commercial facilities were primarily related to architectural 

(non-structural) components, interior finishes, electrical systems, and mechanical systems rather 

than structural damages. From the exterior, the damages appeared limited; however, several of 

these structures experienced significant interior damage, which required replacement of most 

interior components and led to significant repair costs and extensive functional down time. The 

MAT observed that the performance of utility and water treatment facilities varied based upon the 

level of flooding, and most locations experienced damages as a result of exposures and vulnerabilities of critical functions. 

The following representative types of damages were observed:

n The most common form of structural damage to residential buildings was the failure of 

foundation walls, especially those constructed from unreinforced masonry. Foundation 

failures were caused, in most cases, by hydrostatic forces and, in some cases, by 

hydrodynamic forces.

n Many residential buildings lacked sufficient openings in the foundation walls. In 

residential buildings that did have openings in their foundation walls, the openings were 

often too high or were obstructed.

n Critical facilities were damaged not only by rising floodwater but also by water entering 

through below-grade openings including access tunnels from adjacent parking garages 

and connecting buildings, utility tunnels, and sewer systems.

n Development in the floodplain and other activities, such as placing unanchored propane 

tanks and houseboats in the floodplain, led to damaging sources of debris as floodwater 

rose.

Throughout the field investigations, the MAT noted a lack of new construction (houses built 

over the last 10 years) in the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain. Although encouraging in 

terms of floodplain management and losses avoided, it made it difficult to evaluate what the effectiveness of new building codes and construction techniques would have been under the 2008 

flooding conditions.

Recommendations

The recommendations in this report are based on the observations and conclusions of the MAT. 

They are intended to assist the States of Iowa and Wisconsin and their communities, businesses, 

and individuals in the reconstruction process; and to help reduce future damage and impacts from 

similar flood events. The following recommendations are presented in further detail in Chapter 7:

n Basements in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) should be removed if the house 

is substantially damaged and the community is not approved for basement exceptions. 

Consideration should be given to filling in the basement when rebuilding, reinforcing 

foundation walls during repairs, and conducting community outreach to alert 

homeowners to the hazard involved in prematurely pumping water out of their basements. 

Basements in houses located outside the SFHA should also be considered for removal if 

there is a potential for flooding. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
iv MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

n The importance of continuous load paths with regard to foundations should continue 

to be emphasized as this is important in properly securing existing buildings that are 

being elevated on new foundations. In addition, local officials must enforce opening 

requirements in foundation walls in accordance with published FEMA guidance and 

minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements.

n Pre-disaster planning should be conducted by local officials to prepare for increased 

inspection workload following a flood event. 

n Elevation, as it relates to new construction, should be considered and freeboard requirements 

should be adopted for additional protection. Local communities should also consider the 

adoption of cumulative substantial damage clauses for substantial improvements. 

n Critical facilities should be located outside the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood hazard 

area. If this is not possible, equipment and utilities in exposed facilities should be 

protected to the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood level. Systematic reduction of inflows 

from major users should be considered for facilities such as wastewater treatment facilities. 

Staging of emergency equipment (such as pumps, generators, fuel, etc.) should be 

planned for locations outside of mapped flood hazard areas.

n Mitigation grant programs should continue to be utilized to the greatest extent possible. 

Acquisition projects and relocation projects were seen to be highly effective mitigation 

techniques.

n Wise floodplain management practices should continue to evolve and should place stronger 

emphasis on flood risk communication, promotion of the NFIP’s Community Rating 

System, reduction of debris sources in the floodplain, creation and support of locally operated 

programs that fund mitigation projects, and promotion of flood insurance.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN v

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................i

Overall Impact of the 2008 Midwest Floods ....................................................................................... ii

Damage Assessment Observations....................................................................................................... ii

Recommendations............................................................................................................................... iii

1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Midwest Floods – The Event..................................................................................................1-2

1.1.1 Summary of Iowa Flooding and Damages................................................................1-6

1.1.2 Summary of Wisconsin Flooding and Damages.......................................................1-9

1.2 Flood Crest Predictions and Observations .........................................................................1-12

1.3 Economic and Social Impacts of Midwest Floods ..............................................................1-16

1.3.1 Loss Estimates...........................................................................................................1-16

1.3.2 Economic and Social Impacts..................................................................................1-17

1.4 FEMA Mitigation Assessment Teams...................................................................................1-18

1.4.1 Methodology.............................................................................................................1-19

1.4.2 Team Composition...................................................................................................1-21

2 Floodplain Management Regulations, Building Codes, and Standards...................... 2-1

2.1 Floodplain Management Regulations...................................................................................2-2
vi MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC

2.1.1 Iowa Floodplain Management Regulations..............................................................2-2

2.1.2 Wisconsin Floodplain Management Regulations.....................................................2-3

2.1.3 NFIP Participation and Community Rating System.................................................2-5

2.2 Building Codes.......................................................................................................................2-8

2.2.1 Iowa Building Codes..................................................................................................2-9

2.2.2 Wisconsin Building Codes.......................................................................................2-10

2.3 Flood Requirements in Building Codes..............................................................................2-11

2.3.1 Flood Requirements in the 2006 International Residential Code .......................2-11

2.3.2 Flood Requirements in the 2006 International Building Code ...........................2-12

2.3.3 Flood Requirements in the Wisconsin Uniform Dwelling Code...........................2-13

2.3.4 Flood Requirements in the Wisconsin Commercial Building Codes....................2-14

2.4 Flood Requirements in ASCE 7-05......................................................................................2-15

2.5 Flood Requirements in ASCE 24-05....................................................................................2-15

2.6 Reducing Flood Losses Through the International Codes (FEMA 9-7032).....................2-16

2.7 NFIP and State Floodplain Management Regulations and Performance Issues..............2-16

2.7.1 Basements ................................................................................................................2-17

2.7.2 Foundation and Enclosure Wall Openings.............................................................2-17

2.7.3 Substantial Improvement.........................................................................................2-18

2.7.4 Dry Land Access Requirement................................................................................2-18

3 Residential, Historic, and Commercial Buildings........................................................... 3-1

3.1 Residential Properties..........................................................................................................3-10

3.1.1 Overview of Damages...............................................................................................3-12

3.1.2 Residential Basements..............................................................................................3-27

3.1.3 Residential Post-FIRM Elevated Buildings..............................................................3-33

3.1.4 Residential Acquisitions...........................................................................................3-42

3.1.5 Residential Properties – Other................................................................................3-45

3.1.5.1 Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F) ...................................3-45

3.1.5.2 Storage Tanks............................................................................................3-50

3.1.5.3 Boat Houses...............................................................................................3-50

3.2 Historic Buildings.................................................................................................................3-53
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN vii

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.3 Commercial Facilities...........................................................................................................3-58

3.3.1 TriOak Foods Processing Plant, Oakville, Iowa......................................................3-59

3.3.2 Urban Commercial Buildings, Cedar Rapids, Iowa ..............................................3-61

3.3.3 Great American Building, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.......................................................3-62

4 Critical and Essential Facilities........................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Critical Facilities: Local Government....................................................................................4-4

4.1.1 Cedar Rapids City Hall and Linn County Courthouse,

Cedar Rapids, Iowa.....................................................................................................4-5

4.1.2 Linn County Detention Center, Cedar Rapids, Iowa...............................................4-8

4.2 Essential Facilities.................................................................................................................4-10

4.2.1 Mercy Medical Center, Cedar Rapids, Iowa............................................................4-10

4.2.2 Law Enforcement Facilities and Fire Departments................................................4-13

4.2.2.1 Linn County Sheriff’s Department, Cedar Rapids, Iowa........................4-13

4.2.2.2 City of Cedar Rapids Police Department Headquarters,

Cedar Rapids, Iowa...................................................................................4-14

4.2.2.3 La Valle Fire Station, La Valle, Wisconsin................................................4-17

4.3 Utility Plants and Wastewater Treatment and Water Distribution Facilities.....................4-18

4.3.1 Wastewater Treatment Facility, Reedsburg, Wisconsin..........................................4-18

4.3.2 Sewer Pump Station, Reedsburg, Wisconsin..........................................................4-22

4.3.3 Wastewater Treatment Facility, Baraboo, Wisconsin..............................................4-23

4.3.4 Wastewater Treatment Facility, Jefferson, Wisconsin.............................................4-26

4.3.5 Utility Plant, Cedar Falls, Iowa.................................................................................4-29

4.4 Educational Facilities............................................................................................................4-31

4.4.1 Education Services Center and Annex, Cedar Rapids Community

School District, Cedar Rapids, Iowa........................................................................4-31

4.4.2 South School, Reedsburg, Wisconsin......................................................................4-33

4.4.3 Academic Buildings, University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh,

Oshkosh, Wisconsin.................................................................................................4-35

4.4.4 River Center, University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, Oshkosh, Wisconsin.............4-40

4.4.5 University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa..........................................................................4-41

4.5 Lessons Learned...................................................................................................................4-50
viii MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC

5 Mitigation Program Assessment ..................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Mitigation Planning................................................................................................................5-2

5.2 Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Programs..................................................................5-4

5.2.1 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)............................................................5-5

5.2.2 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)...........................................................................5-8

5.2.3 Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM)..................................................................................5-9

5.2.4 Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC)..................................................................................5-9

5.2.5 Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL).....................................................................................5-9

5.3 Public Assistance...................................................................................................................5-11

5.4 Flood Insurance ...................................................................................................................5-11

6 Conclusions......................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Building Performance............................................................................................................6-2

6.1.1 Basements...................................................................................................................6-2

6.1.2 Foundations................................................................................................................6-2

6.1.3 Openings.....................................................................................................................6-4

6.1.4 Damage Inspections...................................................................................................6-4

6.1.5 Elevation.....................................................................................................................6-5

6.1.6 Backflow Prevention...................................................................................................6-5

6.1.7 Critical Facilities.........................................................................................................6-6

6.2 Risk and Communication......................................................................................................6-7

6.3 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs................................................................................6-8

6.3.1 Acquisitions for the Purpose of Open Space............................................................6-8

6.4 Floodplain Management........................................................................................................6-9

6.4.1 Sources of Debris........................................................................................................6-9

6.4.2 Executive Order 11988..............................................................................................6-9

6.4.3 Floodplain Management, Flood Insurance, and Mapping ...................................6-10

7 Recommendations............................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Building Performance............................................................................................................7-1

7.1.1 Basements...................................................................................................................7-1

7.1.2 Foundations................................................................................................................7-3
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN ix

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.1.3 Openings ....................................................................................................................7-3

7.1.4 Damage Inspections...................................................................................................7-4

7.1.5 Elevation.....................................................................................................................7-4

7.1.6 Backflow Prevention...................................................................................................7-5

7.1.7 Critical Facilities.........................................................................................................7-5

7.2 Risk and Communication......................................................................................................7-7

7.3 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs................................................................................7-9

7.4 Floodplain Management......................................................................................................7-10

7.4.1 Sources of Debris......................................................................................................7-10

7.4.2 Executive Order 11988............................................................................................7-10

7.4.3 Floodplain Management, Flood Insurance, and Mapping ...................................7-10

Appendices

Appendix A Acknowledgments

Appendix B References and FEMA Publication List

Appendix C Acronyms and Glossary of Terms

Appendix D FEMA Midwest Floods Recovery Advisories

List of Figures

Chapter 

Figure 1-1. NOAA Spring Flood Outlook – March 2008............................................................1-2

Figure 1-2. Total precipitation in the Midwest, June 1-15, 2008 ................................................1-3

Figure 1-3. Iowa federal disaster declaration areas.....................................................................1-4

Figure 1-4. Wisconsin federal disaster declaration areas ...........................................................1-5

Figure 1-5. Iowa flood timeline....................................................................................................1-7

Figure 1-6. Cedar Rapids, Iowa, areas of flood inundation. The downtown area,

including Mays Island, is highlighted by the yellow box .........................................1-8

Figure 1-7. Inundation in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, exceeded 1- and 0.2-percentannual-chance flood elevations ................................................................................1-9

Figure 1-8. Wisconsin flood timeline.........................................................................................1-10

Figure 1-9. Gays Mills, Wisconsin, areas of flood inundation...................................................1-11
x MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC

Figure 1-10. Rock Springs, Wisconsin, areas of flood inundation.............................................1-12

Figure 1-11. Observed flood levels at the Circus World Museum Bridge along

the Baraboo River, which were just below the estimated 0.2-percentannual-chance flood elevation, validate the estimated recurrence

intervals (Baraboo, WI) ..........................................................................................1-15

Figure 1-12. Downtown Cedar Rapids, Iowa was inundated by several feet of

water in June 2008, causing significant business interruption losses

and recovery time (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)................................................................1-17

Figure 1-13. Iowa MAT field observation locations ....................................................................1-20

Figure 1-14. Wisconsin MAT field observation locations ...........................................................1-21

Chapter 2

Figure 2-1. Floodplain management regulations and building design in

communities with adopted building codes ..............................................................2-2

Figure 2-3. Location of elevated house .....................................................................................2-19

Figure 2-2. Elevated house and driveway on fill (Edgerton, Wisconsin).................................2-19

Chapter 3

Figure 3-1. Floodwater in the downtown Cedar Rapids commercial district

exceeded 6 feet in several buildings, as shown by the parking facility

and surrounding properties (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)..................................................3-4

Figure 3-2. Floodwaters covered 1,300 blocks and 9.2 square miles of Cedar

Rapids (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).....................................................................................3-5

Figure 3-3. Location of commercial buildings shown above at the outer edge of

the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood zone (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...........................3-5

Figure 3-4. Inundation in Gays Mills, Wisconsin, where most of the town

including all of Main Street is located in the SFHA. Most buildings

along Main Street experienced 3 to 5 feet of flooding. ..........................................3-6

Figure 3-5. Commercial and residential buildings in Rock Springs, Wisconsin,

along the Baraboo River where the flood was estimated to be a

0.2-percent-annual-chance flood were inundated with over 4 feet of

water (dashed red line indicates the water line)......................................................3-6

Figure 3-6. This house in Oakville, Iowa, a community protected by a levee that

was overtopped by the Iowa River, was flooded with over 7 feet of water. .............3-7

Figure 3-7. Buildings located within the SFHA along the Rock River in Rock

County, Wisconsin, where the flood is estimated to have exceeded

the 1-percent-annual-chance flood, experienced 2 to 4 feet of flooding. .............3-7
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN xi

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figure 3-8. The recently developed Coralville Conference Center (outlined

in red) downstream of the Coralville Dam (outlined in blue)

implemented emergency protective measures, primarily sandbags,

to limit flooding to a few inches of water on the main floor.

(Coralville, Iowa) .......................................................................................................3-8

Figure 3-9. The Coralville Conference Center is located on the former site of

Edgewater Park and in the SFHA, 3 feet above the BFE. The two

aerials reflect the development along Edgewater Drive over the past

four decades. (Coralville, Iowa)................................................................................3-9

Figure 3-10. Although the Conference Center suffered minor damage, the

adjacent buildings had extensive interior damage on the first floor.

(Coralville, Iowa)......................................................................................................3-10

Figure 3-11. Floodwaters in a residential area of Cedar Rapids during the flood

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...............................................................................................3-11

Figure 3-12. Sample placard for a building that was deemed unsafe to enter by

inspectors (Janesville, Wisconsin)...........................................................................3-12

Figure 3-13. Location map for Figures 3-14 through 3-17 (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).....................3-13

Figure 3-14. Pre-FIRM house located in the SFHA at N Avenue NW. Floodwater

reached the eaves of these houses located a few blocks from a levee

(red line indicates flood level) (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...........................................3-13

Figure 3-15. Pre-FIRM home at N Avenue NW located in the SFHA. Water marks

near top of door and window frame. Marks are several feet above

the levee seen in the background (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).......................................3-14

Figure 3-16. Pre-FIRM house at H Avenue NW. Floodwaters reached the ceiling

of the first floor in this house located outside the SFHA

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...............................................................................................3-14

Figure 3-17. This is another view of the house in Figure 3-16. The side wall and

the adjacent structures are displaced in a way that suggests highvelocity water flows through this neighborhood (Cedar Rapids, Iowa). .............3-15

Figure 3-18. Condensation can be seen beading up on the inside face of the

vapor barrier (red circle). The increased humidity has initiated the

growth of black mold (blue circle), started the rusting of the nails

(blue arrow), and the wood is still wet as can be seen by the dark

patches on the studs (red arrow) (Cedar Rapids, Iowa). ......................................3-15

Figure 3-19. The kitchen countertops, cabinets, appliances, etc., had been

submerged and destroyed (Cedar Rapids, Iowa). .................................................3-16
xii MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC

Figure 3-20. This pre-FIRM house located in the SFHA was displaced from its

foundation into the roadway adjacent to it. The photo below shows

the building’s original location. The red line indicates the depth of

flooding (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)................................................................................3-16

Figure 3-21. Failure of unreinforced masonry foundation walls due to

hydrostatic pressure observed in various locations in Iowa...................................3-17

Figure 3-22. Collapse of a foundation wall due to hydrostatic forces

(Viola, Wisconsin)....................................................................................................3-17

Figure 3-23. This foundation wall collapsed due to hydrostatic pressure

(Reedsburg, Wisconsin)...........................................................................................3-18

Figure 3-24. This basement wall failed and almost collapsed due to lateral

pressures from saturated soils (Shell Rock, Iowa)..................................................3-18

Figure 3-25. This house had two walls that were damaged due to hydrostatic

pressure (Reedsburg, Wisconsin)............................................................................3-19

Figure 3-26. Example of a completed foundation wall repair that included

vertical steel reinforcement and grout throughout the repaired wall

to improve the strength and performance of the foundation

(Waverly, Iowa).........................................................................................................3-20

Figure 3-27. Interior view of the completed foundation wall repair in

Figure 3-26; the owner stated that they placed horizontal steel

reinforcement where possible along the top row of masonry blocks

to create a bond beam. The yellow and blue lines are suggested

reinforcing locations. This wall shows an alternative of external

reinforcing of the wall using steel angles (red arrows) (Waverly, Iowa)...............3-20

Figure 3-28. The house on the left experienced high-velocity flow that passed

through the lower level of the structure. The house on the right

had living space at the same elevation, and the rear of the house

was displaced. The red outline is the original location of the wall;

the red arrow points to the location of the wall after the flood. This

area experienced flooding that exceeded the estimated 0.2-percentannual-chance flood (Coralville, Iowa)..................................................................3-21

Figure 3-29. This garage was swept away and over the adjacent levee. The

remnants of the garage are seen in the right edge of the inset (red

arrow) (Waterloo, Iowa)..........................................................................................3-22

Figure 3-30. The red arrow traces the path of the displaced structure shown in

Figure 3-29. The debris field was found approximately 250 feet away

from its origin (Waterloo, Iowa).............................................................................3-23

Figure 3-31. This foundation wall was subject to scour caused by high-velocity

flow after a levee was overtopped by floodwater (Oakville, Iowa)........................3-23
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN xiii

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figure 3-32. These failed connections were used to secure a home to a

reinforced concrete foundation wall and were spaced every 6 to 7

feet (Oakville, Iowa).................................................................................................3-24

Figure 3-33. The home that was on this foundation was moved several hundred

feet away by the floodwater that overtopped a levee (Oakville, Iowa)..................3-24

Figure 3-34. The home actually remained intact after being forced away from

its foundation (this is the same manufactured home referenced in

Figures 3-31 to 3-33) (Oakville, Iowa).....................................................................3-25

Figure 3-35. The framing for the portion of the home that remained in place

was bolted down to the foundation (this is the same manufactured

home referenced in Figure 3-31 through 3-34) (Oakville, Iowa).........................3-25

Figure 3-36. Residential building constructed on open foundation that suffered

considerably less damage than those on closed foundations in the

same area (Oakville, Iowa)......................................................................................3-26

Figure 3-37. Residential building constructed on open foundation that suffered

considerably less damage than those on closed foundations in the

same area. Slender columns such as those shown here offer little

resistance to lateral loads that can occur from flooding and debris.

Accounting for gravity and lateral loads, not just elevation, should

be considered during design (Oakville, Iowa).......................................................3-26

Figure 3-38. Residential building constructed on open foundation that suffered

considerably less damage than those on closed foundations in the

same area (Oakville, Iowa)......................................................................................3-27

Figure 3-39. Basement windows, like the ones on these houses, were typical

locations for floodwater to enter a basement (Gays Mills, Wisconsin).................3-28

Figure 3-40. This basement sustained damage to the mechanical and plumbing

systems of the home (Waverly, Iowa)......................................................................3-28

Figure 3-41. Basement located in a circa 1880s house. This basement has a

furnace and other utilities that were inundated with 6 to 8 feet of

standing water (Rock Springs, Wisconsin).............................................................3-29

Figure 3-42. This foundation wall collapsed when the homeowner prematurely

pumped water out of the basement (Palo, Iowa)...................................................3-29

Figure 3-43. Post-FIRM construction with a basement in a community approved

for residential basement floodproofing. The basement performed

as designed with a pump removing all flood and groundwater that

entered (La Porte City, Iowa). ................................................................................3-30
xiv MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC

Figure 3-44. This house located just outside the SFHA suffered no damage on

the first floor (unlike the adjacent property), but the basement

suffered damages to architectural finishes, electrical systems, and

contents (Palo, Iowa)...............................................................................................3-31

Figure 3-45. Completed elevation project where the basement was not removed;

this violation was recorded prior to the 2008 floods

(Coralville, Iowa)......................................................................................................3-31

Figure 3-46. Ongoing elevation of property located in the floodplain where

homeowner was planning to keep the basement (Vinton, Iowa).........................3-32

Figure 3-47. Location map for Figure 3-46 (Vinton, Iowa)........................................................3-32

Figure 3-48. New construction elevated on fill with 2 feet of freeboard, which

was not flooded during the event (Jefferson, Wisconsin).....................................3-33

Figure 3-49. Existing house being elevated 2 feet above the BFE

(Koshkonong, Wisconsin).......................................................................................3-34

Figure 3-50. Recently completed elevation project, properly elevated above BFE;

however, the foundation does not have openings at the proper

height (red circles). The crawl space floor is at the same elevation

as the exterior grade (New Hartford, Iowa)...........................................................3-34

Figure 3-51. This property, which was constructed not long before the Midwest

floods, is elevated several feet above BFE and was the least damaged

along a row of more than 50 riverfront properties (Iowa City, Iowa)...................3-35

Figure 3-52. The house in Figure 3-51 is located in River Front Estate Acres

depicted above. The lots are located on the river’s edge in the

SFHA (Iowa City, Iowa)............................................................................................3-35

Figure 3-53. This riverfront house’s two-car garage was one of only a few

properties throughout the areas visited by the MAT with proper

flood vent openings (Iowa City, Iowa)....................................................................3-36

Figure 3-54. Unlike the garage, the riverfront house’s flood openings were

obstructed (Iowa City, Iowa)....................................................................................3-36

Figure 3-55. The homeowner had covered the openings on both the house and

garage during the flood (Iowa City, Iowa). ............................................................3-37

Figure 3-56. Foundation opening that does not conform to NFIP requirements

for openings in foundation walls and walls of enclosures for

structures in the floodplain (Blackhawk Island, Wisconsin).................................3-37

Figure 3-57. This house located in the SFHA had openings for ventilation of

the crawl space, but were too high to be compliant flood openings

(Gays Mills, Wisconsin)............................................................................................3-38
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN xv

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figure 3-58. This house located in the SFHA had openings installed within 12

inches of exterior and interior grade (La Valle, Wisconsin).................................3-38

Figure 3-59. Existing house in the process of being elevated by homeowner

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...............................................................................................3-39

Figure 3-60. Most foundations were being built with anchor bolts to create a

connection between the elevated house and the new foundation.

For this project to be effective there must be a continuous load

path and the use of frequently spaced reinforced cells in the block

foundation walls. This house is located in the SFHA and is being

elevated approximately 4 feet above the BFE (Iowa City, Iowa)...........................3-39

Figure 3-61. This foundation has a well established layout for anchoring the sill

plate. This connection is critical to the proper performance of the

building in high-load events (Parkersburg, Iowa). ................................................3-40

Figure 3-62. Ongoing elevation of a property located in the SFHA where the

foundation is prepared to establish secure connection between

the foundation wall and the existing house. Upon completion, the

house will have a crawlspace with openings at the proper elevation

(Gays Mills, Wisconsin). ..........................................................................................3-40

Figure 3-63. Structure in Reedsburg, Wisconsin, where the lowest floor is

elevated 2 feet above BFE (red line shows the high water mark).

The insert shows the interior of the adjacent pre-FIRM building

had 3 feet of water above the first floor..................................................................3-41

Figure 3-64. This residence was elevated on fill above the BFE in Gays Mills,

Wisconsin after the 2007 floods, and floodwater did not reach the

first floor in 2008......................................................................................................3-42

Figure 3-65. Site of a 1994 clearance project where multiple residential

structures were acquired under the FEMA HMGP. This area is in

the SFHA. Based on observed high water marks, it is estimated the

acquired buildings would have had at least 1 foot of water in them

(Independence, Iowa).............................................................................................3-43

Figure 3-66. Location map for Figure 3-65 (Independence, Iowa)...........................................3-43

Figure 3-67. The top photos show a project where the community acquired and

relocated multiple residences in the SFHA. The lower left image is

one of a few sporadic completed elevations in the same area, and

the lower right is an ongoing elevation project (Cedar Falls, Iowa). ...................3-44

Figure 3-68. Site of successful acquisition of several houses in the SFHA. The

acquisitions were completed using local funds to convert the area

to open space. Had the houses remained in place, they would have

been impacted by 1 to 2 feet of flooding in 2008

(Milwaukee, Wisconsin)...........................................................................................3-45
xvi MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC

Figure 3-69. This is the historic Coralville area circa 1960 from U.S. Department

of Agriculture archives. The red arrow indicates the location of the

flooded subdivision (Iowa City, Iowa).....................................................................3-46

Figure 3-70. This is the Idyllwild community (see red arrow) shown relative

to the natural floodplain with the 1-percent and 0.2-percentannual-chance floodplains highlighted without the elevation on

fill being taken into consideration. The blue arrow is the position

that the upper left photo in Figure 3-72 was taken from. This area

experienced a <0.2-percent-annual-chance flood (Iowa City, Iowa).....................3-47

Figure 3-71. This is the Idyllwild community (see red arrow) shown during the

flood event. The red arrow is the location of the house shown in

Figure 3-72 (Iowa City, Iowa)...................................................................................3-47

Figure 3-72. Site of a subdivision built on fill during the early 1990s, considered

outside the floodplain based on LOMR-F. The dashed line in the

upper right photo indicates the floodwater level. The center right

and left photos show utilities located on the second floor level of the

residence in the upper right photo. The bottom photos illustrate

interior damage to the adjacent properties. The upper left photo was

taken from the position noted in Figure 3-70 (Iowa City, Iowa).............................. 3-48

Figure 3-73. The majority of the units throughout the subdivision were

uninhabitable two months after the event; several issues regarding

re-occupancy will need to be resolved such as repair of the firewall

system dividing the units (Iowa City, Iowa).............................................................3-49

Figure 3-74. Improperly anchored storage tanks in the SFHA (North Freedom,

Wisconsin, and Iowa City, Iowa). ............................................................................3-50

Figure 3-75. Typical boathouse in the Ellis Boat Harbor. Red arrows point to

damaged anchorages (Cedar Rapids, Iowa). .........................................................3-51

Figure 3-76. If these boat houses remain, these anchorages should be much

more robust and tied into more of the upland structure such as

an anchor wall or dead-man system and help avoid damage to the

bulkhead (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...............................................................................3-52

Figure 3-77. About half of the houses were forced loose by the flooding and had

to be recovered throughout the floodplain (Cedar Rapids, Iowa). .....................3-52

Figure 3-78. Several houses were displaced downstream against a railroad bridge

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa). .............................................................................................3-53

Figure 3-79. This historic building (C.S.P.S. Hall) withstood approximately 8

feet of water (red line). This property, in an A11 flood zone, has a

BFE of 722 feet, and a building elevation of approximately 720 feet

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...............................................................................................3-54
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN xvii

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figure 3-80. Cedar Rapids Bohemian Commercial historic district

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa). .............................................................................................3-54

Figure 3-81. Basement and foundation of historic building. The chisel marks in

the hand hewn capstone (red arrow) are physical representations

of the historic context of the building, the stone having been sized

manually versus utilizing machinery (Cedar Rapids, Iowa). ................................3-55

Figure 3-82. This historic fire station’s damage was limited to some broken

windows and a damaged overhead door (Cedar Rapids, Iowa). ..........................3-56

Figure 3-83. The interior ground floor of this historic fire station was designed

with glazed brick. This effectively wet floodproofed the building

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa). .............................................................................................3-56

Figure 3-84. This historic building had loss of the first floor furnishings,

mechanical systems, electrical systems, and finishes due to 8 feet of

water inundation (red line). This property, within the SFHA, has a

BFE of 722 feet, and an elevation of approximately 720 feet.

The upper floors survived intact (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)........................................3-57

Figure 3-85. The interior of the restaurant lost all interior elements up to about

8 feet above the floor (red line) (Cedar Rapids, Iowa). .......................................3-57

Figure 3-86. The Gays Mills downtown district had over 6 feet of water from the

flood (Gays Mills, Wisconsin)..................................................................................3-58

Figure 3-87. Upstream of Gays Mills along the Kickapoo River, this open space

was once downtown Soldier’s Grove before the community began

relocating after significant flooding in 1978. In 2008, the park was

inundated and repaired; however, the damages would have been

much greater had the community not relocated (Soldiers Grove,

Wisconsin)................................................................................................................3-59

Figure 3-88. Water seeping into the ground generated enough buoyancy to

force two 10,000-gallon underground fuel storage tanks through a

4-inch concrete slab at the TriOak Foods plant (Oakville, Iowa). .......................3-60

Figure 3-89. A dry-storage wall was destroyed at TriOak Foods (Oakville, Iowa). ...................3-60

Figure 3-90. Bolted silos like the one at right at TriOak Foods were prone to

seepage; as a result, some feed was lost. Welded silos like the one at

left did not experience seepage (Oakville, Iowa). ................................................3-61

Figure 3-91. The Cedar Rapids downtown district had up to 8 feet of water at

the height of the flood (Cedar Rapids, Iowa). ......................................................3-62
xviii MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC

Figure 3-92. The Great American Building sits along the Cedar River. Although

it had a flood response plan in place, it experienced significant

flooding on its ground floor. This property, in an A11 flood zone,

has a BFE of 724 feet, and an elevation of approximately 720 feet

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...............................................................................................3-62

Chapter 4

Figure 4-1. Flood zones and inundation for Cedar Rapids City Hall, Linn

County Courthouse, Linn County Detention Center, Cedar Rapids

Police Department Headquarters, Linn County Sheriff’s Office,

and Education Services Center Annex (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).................................4-4

Figure 4-2. Mays Island, including City Hall, flooded as the Cedar River rose

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).................................................................................................4-5

Figure 4-3. The Linn County Courthouse and Detention Center on Mays

Island were inundated (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...........................................................4-6

Figure 4-4. The Mays Island underground parking structure connects to

City Hall and the County Courthouse and was a major source of

floodwater intrusion into both buildings (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).............................4-6

Figure 4-5. The tunnel and stairs into City Hall from the underground parking

structure were a source of flooding in the basement

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).................................................................................................4-7

Figure 4-6. City Hall and the Courthouse lost their electrical systems. Cleanup

and replacement were prolonged because of asbestos abatement

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).................................................................................................4-8

Figure 4-7. The Linn County Detention Center is on Mays Island in the Cedar

River (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)........................................................................................4-9

Figure 4-8. Access tunnel to the Courthouse (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)..........................................4-9

Figure 4-9. Flood zones and inundation for Mercy Medical Center

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...............................................................................................4-10

Figure 4-10. Mercy Medical Center, which sits just outside the 0.2-percentannual-chance floodplain, was surrounded by 3 feet of water

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...............................................................................................4-11

Figure 4-11. Water rose to the level of the window bar outside of Mercy. Massive

volunteer efforts helped to keep water levels to a few inches inside

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...............................................................................................4-12

Figure 4-12. Electrical equipment in the basement of Mercy Medical Center,

which was exposed to a few inches of water (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).......................4-12
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN xix

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figure 4-13. Linn County Sheriff’s Department (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).....................................4-13

Figure 4-14. The emergency generator was kept in an outdoor enclosure and

was completely submerged. The water reached the floodlight near

the second floor window (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).....................................................4-14

Figure 4-15. The CRPD Headquarters had 7 feet of water in its ground floor.

The stairs shown here lead up to the first floor (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).................4-15

Figure 4-16. Much of the water that entered the CRPD building came in

through the loading dock (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...................................................4-15

Figure 4-17. A temporary dike was built along the back of the CRPD building

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...............................................................................................4-16

Figure 4-18. Contents stored in the basement, including weapons and

ammunition, were damaged (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...............................................4-16

Figure 4-19. La Valle Fire Department (La Valle, Wisconsin)....................................................4-17

Figure 4-20. Floodway and flood zones for the La Valle Fire Department

(La Valle, Wisconsin)...............................................................................................4-18

Figure 4-21. Floodway and SFHA for Reedsburg WWTF (Reedsburg, Wisconsin)..................4-19

Figure 4-22. Reedsburg WWTF flooded on June 9, 2008. The red line follows

the berm (Reedsburg, Wisconsin)..........................................................................4-20

Figure 4-23. Reedsburg WWTF access road flooded (Reedsburg, Wisconsin).........................4-20

Figure 4-24. Reedsburg WWTF offices and processing facilities flooded

(Reedsburg, Wisconsin)...........................................................................................4-21

Figure 4-25. Floodway and SFHA for Reedsburg Sewer Pump Station

(Reedsburg, Wisconsin)...........................................................................................4-22

Figure 4-26. Reedsburg Sewer Pump Station flooded (Reedsburg, Wisconsin).......................4-23

Figure 4-27. Floodway and SFHA for Baraboo WWTF (Baraboo, Wisconsin)..........................4-24

Figure 4-28. Sandbagging protecting the office building (Baraboo, Wisconsin).....................4-24

Figure 4-29. Some electrical equipment elevated on concrete pads and on wall

(Baraboo, Wisconsin)..............................................................................................4-25

Figure 4-30. Flooded access road at the Baraboo WWTF (Baraboo, Wisconsin)......................4-26

Figure 4-31. Floodway and floodplains for Jefferson WWTF (Jefferson, Wisconsin) ..............4-27

Figure 4-32. Discharge pump platform with space and hook ups for emergency

diesel pump (Jefferson, Wisconsin)........................................................................4-27

Figure 4-33. The Jefferson WWTF is protected by a berm, outlined in red. The

fuel station, shown by the arrow, is not protected and was flooded

(Jefferson, Wisconsin)..............................................................................................4-28
xx MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC

Figure 4-34. SFHA for Cedar Falls Utility Plant (Cedar Falls, Iowa)..........................................4-29

Figure 4-35. Inflatable bladders are stored on site and deployed when a flood

threat is perceived. The Cedar Falls Utility Plant maintained hourly

monitoring of the latest flood levels to determine deployment of

barrier systems (Cedar Falls, Iowa).........................................................................4-30

Figure 4-36. The water level at the Cedar Falls power plant was approximately

2 feet higher than the anticipated flood levels and overtopped the

floodwalls (Cedar Falls, Iowa).................................................................................4-31

Figure 4-37. The ESC had about 8 feet of water on its ground floor, in addition

to a flooded basement (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).........................................................4-32

Figure 4-38. Clay tile wall system of the ESC Annex (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)...............................4-33

Figure 4-39. Floodway and SFHA for South Elementary School (Reedsburg, Wisconsin)......4-34

Figure 4-40. Flooding in South School was due to backup through floor drains

such as the one shown in this photo (Reedsburg, Wisconsin)..............................4-34

Figure 4-41. Damaged paneling in the Pine Room, South School’s cafeteria

and multi-purpose room, was refurbished to maintain the room’s

character (Reedsburg, Wisconsin)..........................................................................4-35

Figure 4-42. Flood zones for the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh and

buildings visited by the MAT (Oshkosh, Wisconsin).............................................4-36

Figure 4-43. City-owned storm drains contributed to flooding at UW Oshkosh,

but this vulnerability was not considered prior to the 2008 floods

(Oshkosh, Wisconsin)..............................................................................................4-36

Figure 4-44. The curb and sidewalk along the entrance to the Kolf Center had

been raised as part of a previous mitigation project to prevent

water that collected in the parking lot from entering the building

and, thus, to provide positive drainage per local building codes

(Oshkosh, Wisconsin)..............................................................................................4-37

Figure 4-45. Carpeting was replaced with flood damage-resistant vinyl flooring

throughout the damaged academic buildings (Oshkosh, Wisconsin).................4-37

Figure 4-46. Water entered steam conduits through above-ground openings like

these. Construction near these openings contributed to the volume

of water entering the conduits (Oshkosh, Wisconsin)..........................................4-38

Figure 4-47. Water entered academic buildings through steam conduits, like the

one in the background (Oshkosh, Wisconsin)......................................................4-39

Figure 4-48. Air gap in drywall to prevent wicking ....................................................................4-39

Figure 4-49. The steep driveway leads from street level to the loading dock at

River Center’s basement (Oshkosh, Wisconsin)....................................................4-40
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN xxi

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figure 4-50. Water pressure in the basement courtyard caused glass windows to

shatter (Oshkosh, Wisconsin).................................................................................4-41

Figure 4-51. Flood zones and inundated buildings for the University of Iowa

(Iowa City, Iowa).......................................................................................................4-42

Figure 4-52. Flooding of IATL and IMU .....................................................................................4-43

Figure 4-53. Interior damage at Voxman Building (Iowa City, Iowa)........................................4-45

Figure 4-54. Double glass panels trapped river water between panes in structural

glass walls at the Art Building West (Iowa City, Iowa)............................................4-46

Figure 4-55. Drywall damage on first floor of Art Museum (Iowa City, Iowa) .........................4-47

Figure 4-56. Entrance to the parking garage beneath the Mayflower Residence

Hall (Iowa City, Iowa)...............................................................................................4-47

Figure 4-57. Power plant site repairs (Iowa City, Iowa)...............................................................4-48

Figure 4-58. Schematic layout of campus tunnels indicating flooded areas ............................4-49

Figure 4-59. Repair to tunnel entrance to Alder Journalism and Mass

Communications Building (Iowa City, Iowa).........................................................4-50

Chapter 5

Figure 5-1. Location of HMGP projects in Iowa and Wisconsin (Based on

FEMA mitigation grant programs data through

July 31, 2008)..............................................................................................................5-6

Figure 5-2. Acquisition for the purposes of open space removes buildings

from the floodplain to prevent future damages. Residents relocate

outside of the floodplain and green open space is provided in a

community (Marion, Iowa).......................................................................................5-7

Figure 5-3. Location of FEMA acquisition projects funded primarily through

the HMGP, along with substantial damage inspection information

for residences in the same area (Cedar Falls, Iowa) (Based on

FEMA mitigation grant programs data through July 31, 2008)...............................5-8

Figure 5-4. SRL property locations in Iowa and Wisconsin......................................................5-10

Chapter 6

Figure 6-1. The foundation of this residential building was exposed to

floodwater flowing from Lake Koshkonong to the Rock River

(Newville, Wisconsin). ...............................................................................................6-3
xxii MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC

Figure 6-2. This home was moved several hundred feet away from its

foundation after floodwater overtopped a levee in Oakville, Iowa.........................6-3

Figure 6-3. Example of a riverfront property with foundation vent openings;

the openings in the garage were clear but those around the house

were blocked by insulation, eliminating the effectiveness of the

openings (Iowa City, Iowa)........................................................................................6-4

Figure 6-4. This property was elevated 2 feet above the BFE and sustained

minimal damages, whereas the adjacent pre-FIRM properties built

at grade had over 4 feet of flooding (Milton, Wisconsin). .....................................6-5

Figure 6-5. This is the site of a FEMA-funded acquisition project near Lake

Koshkonong, Wisconsin; the adjacent building had approximately

3 feet of water throughout the living area................................................................6-8

Figure 6-6. This park/open area was once the site of Soldier’s Grove,

Wisconsin, but in the early 1970s the community began to relocate

after repetitive flooding; although the park was damaged, the

acquisition/relocation program was successful in avoiding damage

to residential and commercial properties that had been relocated........................6-9

Chapter 7

Figure 7-1. This residential building on an open foundation was able to

withstand the hydrodynamic forces; note the opening in the wall,

which is indicative of high-velocity floodwater (Oakville, Iowa). ...........................7-3

Figure 7-2. The primary access road to the Des Moines Water Works is

expected to be under several feet of water during a 1-percentannual-chance flood (Des Moines, Iowa).................................................................7-6

Figure 7-3. The Des Moines Water Works incorporated a secondary access

road along the berm system that protects the treatment plant from

flooding (Des Moines, Iowa). ...................................................................................7-6

Figure 7-4. The Des Moines Water Works has marked historic flood levels at

their pumping facility for more than 90 years (Des Moines, Iowa). ......................7-9

Figure 7-5. The property on the left was elevated to the BFE after flooding in

1993 (no freeboard) and flooded in 2008; after the 2008 floods, the

homeowner of the ongoing elevation project on the right decided

to raise his home 1 foot above the high water mark for the 2008

floods, which is almost 4 feet above the BFE (Iowa City, Iowa). ...........................7-11
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN xxiii

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables

Chapter 1

Table 1-1. USGS River Gauge Data for MAT Observation Locations in

Iowa and Wisconsin..................................................................................................1-13

Chapter 2

Table 2-1. NFIP Status for Iowa Communities Visited by the MAT..........................................2-6

Table 2-2. NFIP Status for Wisconsin Communities Visited by the MAT.................................2-7

Table 2-3. Commercial and Residential Building Codes Adopted in Iowa..............................2-9

Chapter 3

Table 3-1. ASCE Occupancy Categories.....................................................................................3-2

Chapter 4

Table 4-1. Elevation Data for Cedar Rapids Critical Facilities..................................................4-5

Table 4-2. Elevation Data for Facilities at the University of Iowa............................................4-43

Table 4-3. Approximate Estimates of Damages to Facilities at the University of Iowa..........4-44

Table 4-4. Lessons Learned for Critical and Essential Facilities.............................................4-51

Chapter 5

Table 5-1. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs........................................................5-4

Table 5-2. Eligible Flood Mitigation Activities by Program.......................................................5-5

MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 1-1

INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction

In August and September, 2008, the Mitigation Directorate of 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) formed and deployed 

a Mitigation Assessment Team (MAT) to the States of Iowa and 

Wisconsin to assess damage caused by riverine flooding from the 

2008 Midwest floods. This report presents the MAT’s observations, 

conclusions, and recommendations resulting from field investigations.

This chapter provides an introduction, a discussion of the event, and historical information and 

background on the MAT process. Chapter 2 presents a discussion of the codes, standards, and 

regulations that apply to construction in the floodplains of Iowa and Wisconsin. Chapters 3 and 

4 provide a basic assessment and characterization of damages to noncritical and critical facilities. 

Mitigation programs including mitigation planning, grant programs, and flood insurance, and 

their application in Iowa and Wisconsin are detailed in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 presents the MAT’s 

conclusions and discusses past mitigation successes, and Chapter 7 provides the MAT’s recommendations. Appendices include acknowledgments, references, and acronyms/glossary of terms 

as well as recovery advisories detailing specific technical issues related to this event. 

1

Stacy Robinson

Julia Moline

Jacquelyn Nicholson
1-2 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1	 Midwest Floods – The Event

The Midwest has a long history of flooding, with major floods occurring several times over the last 

century including 1927, 1961, 1993, and 2007. Minor flooding is a regular occurrence. In June 

2008, much of the Midwestern portion of the United States received over 12 inches of rainfall 

as several storm systems sequentially impacted the region. This rainfall exacerbated the existing 

saturation level of the soil from the wet conditions throughout the 2007–2008 winter and spring. 

The Midwest had experienced the wettest January–June period on record for 106 locations and 

from the second to fifth wettest for another 180 locations, causing the soil to be so saturated 

that additional rainfall quickly became runoff as the season progressed.1

 The National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a Spring Flood Outlook in March 2008 (Figure 

1-1) noting evidence of ground saturation and above-normal flood potential across much of the 

Midwest including parts of Iowa as well as a potential for moderate to major flooding across parts 

of Wisconsin as a result of heavy winter snow combined with rain.2

 

Figure 1-1. NOAA Spring Flood Outlook – March 2008

SOURCE: NOAA

1 National Climatic Data Center, Climate of 2008 Midwestern U.S. Flood Overview. July 9, 2008. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/

climate/research/2008/flood08.html

2 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration “Current Major Flooding in U.S. a Sign of Things to Come.” March 20, 2008. 

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080320_springoutlook.html
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 1-3

INTRODUCTION 1

When the rain fell in June, the vast majority of precipitation across the region was channeled directly into the lakes, rivers, and streams as runoff. Resulting streamflows reached historic highs 

across the Midwest, particularly in many areas of Iowa, southern Wisconsin, and northern Illinois. 

According to NOAA’s Midwestern Regional Climate Center, precipitation across much of Missouri, 

Iowa, southern Wisconsin, central Illinois, southern Indiana, central Ohio, and northern Lower 

Michigan was more than 200 percent above normal for the month of June, exceeding 12 inches in 

much of the region (Figure 1-2).3 Flooding began in early June, lingered for weeks in many areas, 

and broke historic records for flood levels. According to National Climatic Data Center estimates, 

the flooding across seven states in the Midwest killed 24 people4

 and many of these deaths resulted 

when people attempted to drive across flooded roads and bridges.

Figure 1-2. Total precipitation in the Midwest, June 1-15, 2008

SOURCE: NOAA MIDWESTERN REGIONAL CLIMATE CENTER

3 NOAA Midwestern Regional Climate Center, Midwest Overview – June 2008. http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/0806/

climwatch.0806.htm

4 National Climatic Data Center, Climate of 2008 Midwestern U.S. Flood Overview. July 9, 2008. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/

climate/research/2008/flood08.html
1-4 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

1 INTRODUCTION

In Iowa, a presidential disaster declaration made on May 27, 2008, for severe storms and tornadoes 

was amended as a result of the June flooding. The presidential disaster declaration was increased 

from 4 counties to include a total of 85 counties as shown in Figure 1-3. A state disaster declaration by 

Iowa Governor Chet Culver included 86 counties. As a result of the flooding in Wisconsin, Governor 

Jim Doyle requested a joint federal/state preliminary damage assessment on June 10, and, as a result, 31 counties were declared as federal disaster areas as shown in Figure 1-4. 

Flooding occurred even outside of mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) (i.e., areas that 

have a 1-percent or greater chance of being flooded in any given year, also known as 100-year floodplains). Though the SFHA is used as the minimum regulatory area for National Flood Insurance 

Program (NFIP) purposes and floodplain development standards, the natural floodplain extends 

beyond this regulatory area and can be flooded in more infrequent events.5

 The emphasis placed 

on the SFHA often creates a misperception that flooding cannot occur outside of this designated 

area, which leads to a lack of awareness and preparedness for properties located outside of the 

SFHA on FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)6

 (refer to Section 1.2 and Table 1-1 for 

flood crest observation information).

Figure 1-3. Iowa federal disaster declaration areas

5 FEMA 309, Addressing Your Community’s Flood Problems. June 1996.

6 Montgomery, Malcolm K. and Lively, Francis P. The Rising Tide – Flood Insurance in an Active Hurricane Era. Winter 2006. 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 1-5

INTRODUCTION 1

Figure 1-4. Wisconsin federal disaster declaration areas

Many homeowners, businesses, other building owners, and volunteers attempted to avoid flood 

damages in several ways. Most of the flood preparation efforts were ineffective in protecting against 

the flood; however, some techniques helped to significantly reduce flood damage including:

n Moving contents to higher floors

n Sandbagging around entrances of critical facilities, over manhole covers, and to build 

temporary dikes 

n Pumping water out of buildings and critical facility sites before, during, and after rivers 

crested 

n Using elevator pits for sumps at several locations

n Drilling drainage holes in floors and walls to relieve hydrostatic pressure by allowing water 

to pass through

In general, these techniques could not entirely protect against flood damage. Water that was higher 

than expected or coming in from unanticipated sources undermined remediation efforts, rendering them mostly futile. Surcharge of sanitary sewage systems can occur from a number of causes (as 

outlined in Section 1.1.1) and could have been anticipated from the conditions described above. 

However, as noted in the summary of damages, both frequent and costly damages occurred from 

sewer back-up that could have been prevented with appropriate preparation.
1-6 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1	 Summary of Iowa Flooding and Damages

The flooding experienced in Iowa during early June was record breaking in terms of water depths 

and discharges, with floodwaters reaching 0.2-percent-annual-chance levels in many locations 

(refer to Section 1.2 and Table 1-1 for flood crest observation information). Approximately 1.2 

million acres of corn and soybeans were lost, nearly 10 percent of the tillable land in Iowa was under water, and estimated crop losses surpassed $3 billion.7

 Iowa highways were also impacted as 24 

state roads, 20 highways including Interstates 80 and 380, and more than 1,000 secondary roads 

were closed at some point during the course of the flooding.8

 Iowa City was impacted as floodwater affected 304 residences across the city and caused significant damage to 19 buildings and some 

infrastructure elements at the University of Iowa campus. Wastewater treatment facilities in several cities were compromised. In addition, surcharge (i.e., more sewage and stormwater coming 

in than can be handled) resulted in sewer back-ups into toilets, sinks, and drains in schools, police 

stations, hospitals, and homes. This situation can occur from a number of causes. Even when sewage systems are entirely separate from stormwater systems, they are still not water tight and surface 

water can infiltrate the sanitary sewer system through cracks and small holes in pipes and manhole lids. Systems are most frequently surcharged when stormwater and sewage are combined. 

Discharges of stormwater into sanitary sewers (from rain leaders or other sources) is a common 

practice in some areas (however current design practices no longer permit this technique), but 

when this occurs it can also result in excessive flow into a sanitary sewer. 

A timeline of the Iowa flood is presented in Figure 1-5.

7 Agriculture and Environment Task Force Report To the Rebuild Iowa Advisory Commission, Rebuild Iowa Office, August 2008. 

http://www.rio.iowa.gov/task_forces/ag-enviro/ag-enviro_report_08-2008.pdf. 

8 Flood Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, March 3, 2009. http://www.corridorrecovery.org/city/plan. 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 1-7

INTRODUCTION 1

Figure 1-5. Iowa flood timeline

SOURCES: KCRG TV NEWS, USGS
1-8 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

1 INTRODUCTION

In Cedar Rapids, a flood crest more than 12 feet above the previous record of 19.66 feet set in 1961 

flooded areas well outside of the designated floodplain (Figure 1-6). A portion of the downtown 

area with several government facilities including City Hall is located on Mays Island in the Cedar 

River, which flooded (Figure 1-7). Levees were overtopped, flooding neighborhoods that were 

thought to be adequately protected. Three food manufacturing plants in Cedar Rapids (Quaker, 

Swiss Valley Farms, and Penford Products) were closed because of flood inundation to facilities as 

well as access roads. By June 23, floodwater was moving swiftly across overtopped banks and levees 

along the Cedar River. The City of Cedar Rapids reported over $5.4 billion in flood losses with 

inundation affecting 9.2 square miles, 1,300 city blocks, 3,894 single family residences, and 818 

commercial properties and government buildings in this jurisdiction alone.9

 Structures such as 

the Linn County Sheriff’s Office and Mercy Medical Center were subject to riverine flooding even 

though they were located outside of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain (also known as the 

500-year floodplain) on the FIRM. 

Figure 1-6.

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, areas of flood

inundation. The downtown area,

including Mays Island, is highlighted

by the yellow box.

9 Flood Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, March 3, 2009. http://www.corridorrecovery.org/city/plan
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 1-9

INTRODUCTION 1

Figure 1-7. Inundation in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, exceeded 1- and 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood elevations.

1.1.2	 Summary of Wisconsin Flooding and Damages

As a result of flooding across southern Wisconsin, 

hundreds of people were forced from their homes 

as several highways were closed and homes became 

inundated. The Rock, Kickapoo, and Baraboo 

Rivers were greatly impacted by the rainfall and 

experienced significant flooding, with floodwaters reaching 0.2-percent-annual-chance levels 

and breaking flood records in some locations (refer to Section 1.2 and Table 1-1 for flood crest 

observation information). Low-lying farm fields 

were inundated, and millions of dollars in crops 

were lost. Several manufacturing facilities impacted by the flood, including Tyson and Avalanche 

Organics, laid off workers. A timeline of the flooding in Wisconsin is presented in Figure 1-8.

DEFINITIONS

EL = Elevation Above Sea Level (Top of 

Deck for Bridges Shown)

RM = Reference Mark (FIRM Elevation 

Benchmark)

BFE = Base Flood Elevation. The BFE 

is the elevation of the 1-percent-annualchance flood. 
1-10 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

1 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1-8. Wisconsin flood timeline 

SOURCES: WCLO NEWS, USGS, WISCONSIN RECOVERY TASK FORCE REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 1-11

INTRODUCTION 1

Many areas in Wisconsin experienced record snowfall in early 2008 and with the spring rains, 

ground saturation was higher than average. With soil infiltration rates lowered, the volume of 

stormwater runoff increased. Older structures and developments were not designed to manage 

stormwater as well as they are today. Some structures experienced inches and others several feet 

of standing water. Sanitary sewer systems experienced high inflow and infiltration through cracks 

in the system, and sewer backups were reported in many critical facilities. Wastewater treatment 

facilities dealt with multiple complications: high inflow from stormwater infiltration exceeding 

plant operational treatment capacities, plant inundation from surface flows and riverine flooding 

resulting in a complete plant shutdown, and limited fuel and power capabilities needed to keep 

generators running and pumps operating at full capacity. 

Most of the downtown area of Gays 

Mills was flooded in June 2008.10 In 

August 2007, just 10 months before 

the June 2008 flood, the Kickapoo 

River had inundated the western 

portion of Gays Mills with record 

flooding. Several homes were awaiting pending buyouts and some 

businesses had not yet reopened 

when the new flooding occurred. 

Rock Springs was inundated by 7 

feet of water throughout the downtown area. Figures 1-9 and 1-10 

illustrate the scale of inundation 

across Gays Mills and Rock Springs 

in June 2008. 

Figure 1-9.

Gays Mills, Wisconsin, areas of flood

inundation

10 Wisconsin Recovery Task Force, Report to the Governor, November 2008.
1-12 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

1 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1-10.

Rock Springs, Wisconsin, areas of flood

inundation

1.2	 Flood Crest Predictions and Observations

As the Midwest braced for flooding in June, citizens monitored crest predictions as they made 

decisions on how to prepare. Although warnings and preparation activities took place, many residents found themselves confused by changing crest predictions as well as actual flood crest levels 

several feet higher than predictions. 

Flood gauges located along streams and rivers monitored water levels periodically to gather data 

regarding rising floodwaters to be used by the National Weather Service (NWS) to predict crest levels. However, the preliminary crest estimates provided by the NWS were exceeded in several areas. 

As the flood grew larger, flood heights exceeded predicted levels, and many historical records were 

broken (Table 1-1). Figure 1-11 shows an example of a location where the observed recurrence interval is supported by the corresponding flood elevation provided in the Flood Insurance Study.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 1-13

INTRODUCTION 1

Table 1-1. USGS River Gauge Data for MAT Observation Locations in Iowa and Wisconsin

Stream

and Place of

Determination

MAT

Observation

Locations

within 10

miles of

Gauge

Maximum prior to

June 2008 Flood Maximum during June 2008 Flood New

record

stage/

discharge

set in

2008?

Date Stage

(feet)

Discharge

(cfs) Date Stage(feet)

Discharge

(cfs)

Estimated

recurrence

interval*

(percent)

IOWA

Beaver Creek at

New Hartford

New Hartford, 

Waterloo 06/13/1947 13.50 18,000 06/08/2008 15.71 25,900 0.2-1 Yes

Cedar River at

Cedar Rapids

Cedar Rapids, 

Palo 03/31/1961 19.66 73,000 06/11/2008 31.1 150,000 <0.2 Yes

Cedar River at

Janesville

Cedar Falls, 

New Hartford 07/22/1999 17.15 42,200 06/10/2008 19.45 53,400 0.2-1 Yes

Cedar River at

Waterloo Waterloo 03/29/1961 21.86 76,700 06/11/2008 25.39 105,000 0.2-0.5 Yes

Cedar River at

Waverly Waverly 04/14/2001 12.95 25,600 06/09/2008 18.7 49,200 <0.2 Yes

Des Moines

River at 2nd

Avenue, Des

Moines

Des Moines 06/24/1954 30.16 60,200 06/13/2008 31.57 47,300 0.2-1 Yes

Des Moines

River below

Racoon River at

Des Moines

Des Moines 07/11/1993 34.29 116,000 06/13/2008 35 117,000 0.2-1 Yes

Fourmile Creek

at Des Moines Des Moines 06/18/1998 15 5,600 06/09/2008 17.34 11,800 >2-4 Yes

Iowa River at

Iowa City

Coralville, 

Iowa City 06/01/1851 24.1 70,000 06/14/2008 31.52 41,900 <0.2 Yes

Iowa River at

Lone Tree

Columbus 

Junction 07/07/1993 22.94 57,100 06/15/2008 23.10 53,700 0.2-1 Yes

Iowa River at

Wapello Oakville 07/08/1993 28.1 111,000 6/14/2008 32.15 188,000 <0.2 Yes

Iowa River

below Coralville

Dam near

Coralville

Coralville, 

Iowa City 07/19/1993 63.95 25,800 06/12/2008 68.09 40,800 <0.2 Yes

Shell Rock

River at Shell

Rock

Clarksville, 

New Hartford, 

Shell Rock

03/28/1961 16.26 33,500 06/10/2008 20.36 60,400 <0.2 Yes

Wapsipinicon

River at

Independence

Independence 05/18/1999 22.35 31,100 06/11/2008 18.86 23,700 >4 No

Note: Figures 1-13 and 1-14 show gauge locations with return intervals in relation to MAT observation locations

* By definition, the recurrence interval corresponding to a particular flood probability is equal to one divided by the flood probability. 

For example, the flood probability of 0.2 percent corresponds to the 500-year flood.
1-14 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

1 INTRODUCTION

Stream

and Place of

Determination

MAT

Observation

Locations

within 10

miles of

Gauge

Maximum prior to

June 2008 Flood Maximum during June 2008 Flood New

record

stage/

discharge

set in

2008?

Date Stage

(feet)

Discharge

(cfs) Date Stage(feet)

Discharge

(cfs)

Estimated

recurrence

interval*

(percent)

WISCONSIN

Baraboo River

near Baraboo Baraboo 03/26/1917 17.5 7,900 06/13/2008 27.51 18,000 <0.2 Yes

Kickapoo River

at Gays Mills Gays Mills 02/10/1966 16 10,600 06/09/2008 20.4 19,200-

22,000 >1 Yes

Kickapoo River

at La Farge

La Farge, 

Viola 07/01/1978 14.92 14,300 06/08/2008 15.78 22,100 0.2-0.5 Yes

Kickapoo River

at Steuben Gays Mills 07/03/1978 14.81 16,500 06/10/2008 19.16 28,700 0.2-0.5 Yes

Milwaukee

River at

Milwaukee

Milwaukee 06/21/1997 10 16,500 06/07/2008 8.07 10,400 4-10 No

Oak Creek

at South

Milwaukee

Milwaukee 08/06/1986 9.88 1,140 06/07/2008 11.56 2,370 <0.2 Yes

Rock River at

Afton Janesville 03/23/1929 11.81 13,000 06/21/2008 13.51 16,700 0.2-0.5 Yes

Rock River at

Indianford

Janesville, 

Milton, 

Newville

04/05/1979 16.23 11,900 06/21/2008 18.33 14,900 1-2 Yes

Note: Figures 1-13 and 1-14 show gauge locations with return intervals in relation to MAT observation locations

* By definition, the recurrence interval corresponding to a particular flood probability is equal to one divided by the flood probability. 

For example, the flood probability of 0.2 percent corresponds to the 500-year flood.

Flood predictions varied widely in the days leading up to the floods, resulting in some confusion 

among residents and local officials. In Iowa City, river flow predictions jumped by as much as 

10,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), or 33 percent, when an estimate calculation error was corrected 

in the final days before the flood. Significant preparation was required to protect the University 

of Iowa campus from flooding, and an entire day of preparation was lost as a result of the estimation error. The Johnson County, Iowa, Emergency Operations Center (EOC) worked with the 

University of Iowa to use HAZUS-MH (FEMA’s loss estimation software) to develop estimates of 

potential impacts based on predicted crest levels to aid with planning and decision making, including the estimation of road closures, government building vulnerability, and displaced households. 

At the wastewater treatment facility in Reedsburg, Wisconsin, real-time flood level predictions 

were not available due to the absence of flood gauges. As a result, officials had to rely on information relayed to them by neighboring towns. 

Table 1-1. USGS River Gauge Data for MAT Observation Locations in Iowa and Wisconsin (continued)
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 1-15

INTRODUCTION 1

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Cedar River at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, crested 

on June 11, 2008, at 31.10 feet (after increasing nearly 10 feet during the previous 24 hours), over 

11 feet higher than the previous record of 19.66 feet set on March 21, 1961.11 Only 48 hours before 

this record crest, the river had been projected to crest at 20 feet, and even on the morning of June 

11, the crest was predicted to be only 24.7 feet, which is 7.7 feet lower than the actual flood crest 

level. At this location, the Cedar River was above flood stage for nearly two weeks. Several riverside 

neighborhoods, including some protected by a levee, experienced flooding of 10–12 feet, covering homes up to the rooflines. The Linn County Detention Center in Cedar Rapids was forced to 

implement an immediate evacuation of over 350 inmates as water began to enter the building and 

cover access bridge routes. 

11 USGS Iowa Water Science Center. High Flow Statistics – Flood 2008. http://ia.water.usgs.gov/flood08/high_flow_stats.htm

Figure 1-11.

Observed flood levels at the Circus World Museum Bridge along the Baraboo River, which were just below the estimated

0.2-percent-annual-chance flood elevation, validate the estimated recurrence intervals (Baraboo,Wisconsin).
1-16 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

1 INTRODUCTION

In October 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) convened a Rainfall-River Forecast 

Summit of representatives of the USACE, NWS, and the USGS. A public meeting was also held 

as part of the summit to elicit public comment. Summit participants concluded that significantly 

more rain fell than was predicted, resulting in record river flood stages that were not forecast with 

sufficient lead time to allow for appropriate emergency response preparations. Although the coordination and data exchange generally went well, it was concluded that discrepancies of reported 

data created forecasting challenges and raised doubts of forecast reliability. River gauges damaged 

or swept away by the floodwaters resulted in data gaps during critical periods. As a result, some 

river forecasts were inaccurate. Better coordination, communication, and collaboration, as well as 

more and better data measurements, were recommended by the summit participants.12

1.3	 Economic and Social Impacts of Midwest Floods

Due to the extensive nature of the 2008 Midwest floods, Iowa and Wisconsin reported that impacted areas incurred billions of dollars in economic and agricultural losses, and many residents lost 

homes and suffered the social and psychological impacts of the disaster. Critical facilities across 

both states suffered interruptions and experienced significant losses, including water system facilities, city hall, police facilities (including detention cells), fire stations, schools, and libraries. 

1.3.1	 Loss Estimates

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, estimated that 18,623 persons were in the impacted flood area and approximately 5,390 residential properties were damaged or destroyed. As many as 1,500 properties were 

slated to be demolished, although only 71 were demolished within the first 6 months after the flood. 

Approximately 1,360 job losses resulted from the flood. Children and their parents were affected as 

45 registered day-care providers were damaged as well as several schools, displacing 3,347 children. 

Eight cultural assets (e.g., museums, theaters, cultural centers) were displaced and/or destroyed.13

Over 80,000 tons of residential debris had been collected and removed from impacted areas across 

the city by the end of 2008 at a cost of $9 million; the city estimates that, when removal is complete, 

the total volume of removed debris will likely be equivalent to filling four football fields. It is estimated that, at the time of the flood, only 36 percent of the residences in the SFHA that were impacted 

by the flood were insured through the NFIP, with total coverage at over $107 million.14

By April 2009, over 23,200 households in Iowa were approved for federal and state assistance totaling 

$121.5 million. Over $651 million was approved for public assistance projects to state and local government agencies.15 By March 2009 in Wisconsin, over $55.6 million in federal and state disaster grants 

and over $48 million in loan assistance was obligated to individuals and business owners, and over $70 

million was obligated for approved public assistance projects to state and local government agencies.16

12 Interagency Levee Task Force “U.S. Geological Survey—Rainfall-River Forecast Summit” in Raising the Standard, Oct./Nov. 2008 

newsletter, available at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ILTF/docs/ILTF_Newsletter_OctNov_08.pdf.

13 City of Cedar Rapids Corridor Recovery, April 2009. http://www.corridorrecovery.org/stats.asp

14 City of Cedar Rapids Corridor Recovery, April 2009. 

15 Rebuild Iowa Office. “Facts and Figures.” April 15, 2009. http://www.rio.iowa.gov/resources/facts.html

16 Gray, Roxanne. Wisconsin State Hazard Mitigation Officer.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 1-17

INTRODUCTION 1

1.3.2	 Economic and Social Impacts

Many areas in Iowa and Wisconsin experienced economic impacts as a result of the floods. Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa, and the Lake Delton area of Wisconsin are two examples of areas that experienced significant economic losses to commercial businesses. In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, approximately 700 area 

businesses were damaged, destroyed, or suffered substantial economic loss as a direct result of the 

flood. Many businesses, especially in the areas directly adjacent to the Cedar River downtown, were 

forced to close for several months as the significant damage was repaired. In many cases, commercial 

businesses required significant personal expense to return to normal operations (Figure 1-12). In the 

tourism-reliant Wisconsin Dells area of south central Wisconsin, Lake Delton was severely impacted 

by the heavy and persistent rainfall in early June, which caused the land between the lake and the 

Wisconsin River to quickly erode and the 267-acre manmade lake to quickly empty into the nearby 

river on June 9. Erosion of the land between the lake and the river created a new channel, and, as a 

result, several homes were destroyed and many lake-based tourist attractions were inoperable causing 

significant income losses to the local tourism industry.

Figure 1-12.

Downtown Cedar Rapids,

Iowa was inundated by

several feet of water in

June 2008, causing

significant business

interruption losses and

recovery time (Cedar

Rapids, Iowa).

Disaster-stricken communities have often shown economic growth in the years following the event, 

due in part to recovery efforts that stimulate industries including clean-up, construction, and remodeling. However, this growth is not necessarily a good indicator of the actual economic activity 

that takes place after a disaster. Rick Mattoon of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago explains:

In most cases the rebuilding merely replaces lost capital stock—meaning that, in the long 

term, the nation’s product will not exceed what would have been produced without the 

disaster. While the immediate burst of economic activity is quite evident, the losses from the 

foregone output of interrupted and diminished business activity may go largely undetected 

because the diminished growth takes place in small amounts spread over many years.17

17 Assessing the Midwest Floods of 2008 (and 1993), Mattoon, Rick, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, July 10, 2008. 

http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/archives/2008/07/mattoon_flood_b.html
1-18 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

1 INTRODUCTION

Following the 2008 floods, Iowa State University published a preliminary paper titled Economic 

Impacts of the 2008 Floods in Iowa18 that outlines the expected social and economic impacts of the 

event. The paper considers four social categories in the Midwest that were affected: households, 

farmers, businesses, and communities. Families faced the loss of personal items, household goods, 

vehicles, and homes in addition to the possible loss of wages or even jobs. The floods affected corn 

and soybean acres so much that anticipated gross sales for Iowa’s crop farmers might be as much as 

$1.5 billion less than it could have been based on preliminary calculations in June 2008. Business 

owners faced loss of inventory, sales, productivity, and profits. Many communities experienced a 

disruption in public service delivery including water and wastewater systems, public infrastructure 

repair, and clean-up activities, and it is expected that local property tax revenues might decline as 

damaged homes await repair or demolition. 

Recovery prospects for any community depend on its relative health before the flood event. By 

June 2008, some households in the affected areas had already experienced economic stress due to 

higher fuel and food prices nationwide. Furthermore, people residing in floodprone areas tend to 

have lower than average incomes and fewer resources to aid recovery.19 These two factors could result in lower homeownership rates throughout affected areas as post-disaster recovery takes place. 

Similarly, commercial districts in small communities were experiencing economic stress before the 

flood due to the profusion of larger regional trade centers. Without a wide economic base, these 

districts may have difficulty returning to pre-flood operation. Independent and locally owned 

businesses may also have a hard time resuming operation without the large support network of 

businesses owned or operated by large chains.20

1.4	 FEMA Mitigation Assessment Teams

FEMA conducts scientific and engineering studies before and after disasters to better understand 

natural and manmade events impacting the built environment. These studies are conducted with 

the intent of reducing the number of lives lost to these events and minimizing the economic, 

social, and psychological impacts on the communities where these events occur. Additionally, lessons learned are applied to the education of residents and to the rebuilding effort after disasters 

to enhance the disaster resistance of new building stock and apply mitigation measures to existing 

buildings. 

Since the mid-1980s, FEMA has sent MATs to presidentially declared disaster areas to evaluate 

building performance, assess damage, and provide recommendations to reduce future damage. 

Based on estimates from preliminary information about the potential type and severity of damage 

in the affected area(s) and the magnitude of expected hazards, FEMA determines the potential 

need to deploy MATs to observe and assess damage to buildings and structures caused by the 

18 Economic Impacts of the 2008 Floods in Iowa. Iowa State University Extension, June 2008. 

http://www.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_12954.pdf

19 Implementing Floodplain Land Acquisition Programs in Urban Localities, The Center for Urban & Regional Studies, University of 

North Carolina at Chapel Hill, December 2003. 

http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~james.c.fraser/publications/Floddplain%20Project%20Report.Final.pdf

20 Economic Impacts of the 2008 Floods in Iowa
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 1-19

INTRODUCTION 1

event. These teams are deployed when FEMA believes the findings and recommendations derived 

from field observations will provide design and construction guidance that will not only improve 

the disaster resistance of the built environment in the impacted state or region but will also be 

of national significance to regions exposed to similar hazards. Most past MATs have focused on 

coastal flooding and wind in relation to hurricane impacts. Riverine flooding occurs frequently 

across the United States, but, prior to the Midwest floods, it had never been the focus of a MAT. 

The Midwest flood disaster provided an opportunity for a MAT to formally evaluate a number of 

planning and building construction practices related to riverine flooding and to provide insight 

on the effectiveness of recovery and mitigation efforts that were undertaken after the 1993 flood.

1.4.1	 Methodology

In response to requests for technical support from FEMA Joint Field Offices in Urbandale, Iowa, 

and Madison, Wisconsin, FEMA’s Mitigation Directorate formed and deployed a MAT to Iowa 

and Wisconsin to evaluate both building performance during the flooding and the adequacy of 

current building codes, other construction requirements, and building practices and materials. 

Building performance issues including floodproofing, flood resistant materials, basement exceptions, elevations, and critical facilities performance were investigated. Effectiveness of mitigation 

measures and floodplain management practices were also reviewed. Additionally, the MAT was 

tasked with reviewing, updating, and developing mitigation educational materials for future use 

during disaster declaration activities. 

The flood levels for this event in most impacted areas of Iowa and Wisconsin far exceeded the 

current minimum standard design flood event (i.e., the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event), as 

illustrated on the FEMA FIRMs, and there were occurrences of overtopped levees in some locations. This presented a unique opportunity to investigate long-term impacts of riverine flooding 

on structural and non-structural elements of buildings, as well as floodplain management issues. 

A Pre-MAT was deployed to conduct the first field inspection; further refine FEMA’s initial estimates of the types and extent of damage; and determine the value of the information likely to 

result from deployment of a MAT, and, if deployed, what the composition of the team should be. 

The Pre-MAT conducted preliminary field investigations to assess building conditions in flood impacted areas across Iowa between August 8 and 15, 2008. Based on damage information collected 

by the Pre-MAT, including joint FEMA-state Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs), the area of 

focus for the full MAT was more fully defined. 

The full MAT was deployed to Iowa on August 15, 2008, for one week, conducting ground observations from Ames, Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids, Clarksville, Coralville, Columbus Junction, Des 

Moines, Independence, Iowa City, La Porte City, New Hartford, Oakville, Palo, Shell Rock, Vinton, 

Waterloo, and Waverly, as shown in Figure 1-13. This figure also illustrates the estimated return 

period of the event for certain locations, where available.
1-20 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

1 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1-13. Iowa MAT field observation locations

Preliminary field investigations to assess building conditions in Wisconsin were conducted between 

August 13 and 22, 2008. Based on the data collected through the preliminary field investigations, 

the area of focus for the full MAT was more fully defined. The full MAT was deployed to Wisconsin 

on September 7, 2008, for one week, conducting ground observations from Baraboo, Blackhawk 

Island, Clark Creek, Elm Grove, Fond du Loc, Fort Atkinson, Gays Mills, Janesville, Jefferson, La 

Farge, La Valle, Lake Delton, Koshkonong, Milwaukee, Milton, Newville, North Freedom, North 

Shore, Oshkosh, Portage, Reedsburg, Richland Center, Rock Springs, Soldiers Grove, Spring 

Green, Viola, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin Dells, and Wonewoc, as shown in Figure 1-14. This figure also 

illustrates the estimated return period of the event for certain locations, where available. The MAT 

also visited Darlington to document lessons learned and success stories from previous floods.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 1-21

INTRODUCTION 1

Figure 1-14. Wisconsin MAT field observation locations

Damages were observed to single- and multi-family buildings, manufactured housing, commercial properties, and historic buildings. Additionally, critical and essential facilities such as EOCs, 

fire and police stations, hospitals, schools, critical infrastructure (i.e., wastewater treatment facilities), and city halls were evaluated in order to document building performance as well as loss of 

function from flooding. Documentation of observations is presented in this report, including photographs and figures to illustrate successes and failures with expected building performance in the 

flooded areas.

The MAT’s conclusions about observed damages are set forth in Chapter 6, and its specific recommendations for minimizing future damages from flooding are provided in Chapter 7. 

1.4.2	 Team Composition

The MAT included staff from FEMA Headquarters and FEMA Regions V and VII as well as experts from the design and construction industry. Team members included structural engineers, 

architects, civil engineers, building code experts, floodplain mapping experts, hazard mitigation 

planners, GIS specialists, and technical writers. In addition, representatives from the USACE, 

Colorado State University, the International Code Council (ICC), and the Institute for Business & 

Home Safety (IBHS) participated.

MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 2-1

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS 2

Floodplain Management 

Regulations, Building Codes, 

and Standards

This chapter discusses the floodplain management regulations, 

building codes, and standards adopted and enforced by the 

communities in Iowa and Wisconsin that were studied by the MAT. 

These codes and standards enable communities to manage risk 

through adopting and enforcing regulations. 

The floodplain management regulations applicable to the areas affected by the Midwest floods of 

2008 are discussed in Section 2.1. Section 2.2 presents the building codes used to regulate construction. Building code requirements specific to floods are discussed in Section 2.3. Sections 2.4 

and 2.5 discuss building standards used to regulate construction. Section 2.6 discusses how to reduce flood losses through the use of International Codes. Floodplain management performance 

issues observed by the MAT are presented in Section 2.7.

2

Amit Mahadevia

Phillip Grankowski

Wallace A. Wilson
2-2 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

2 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS

2.1 Floodplain Management Regulations

The NFIP minimum floodplain management regulations are set forth in Title 44, Parts 59 and 60, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR §59 and 60). The key objectives of 44 CFR §59 and 

60 are to reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on human health, safety, 

and welfare.

NFIP floodplain management requirements coupled with strong building codes and development 

requirements can minimize flood damages, save property owners significant dollars in the long 

term, and reduce social disruptions and injuries. NFIP floodplain requirements form the basis of a 

community’s efforts to guide development in flood hazard areas. These requirements are incorporated into a community’s floodplain management ordinance. The NFIP requirements pertaining 

to building standards have been integrated into national consensus standards, national building 

codes and state building codes that are adopted by communities. Figure 2-1 illustrates how NFIP 

regulations interact with building codes to affect building design in communities with adopted 

building codes. All of the communities visited by the MAT have adopted floodplain management 

regulations that meet or exceed the minimum NFIP requirements.

Figure 2-1. Floodplain management regulations and building design in communities with adopted building codes 

2.1.1 Iowa Floodplain Management Regulations

Iowa has required permits for development in floodplains since 1965. The Legislature of the 

State of Iowa has in Chapter 335, Code of Iowa, as amended, delegated the power to communities to enact zoning regulations to secure safety from flood and to promote health and the 

general welfare. Therefore, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) can delegate authority to a community to issue permits in the SFHA if the community has a detailed Flood 

Insurance Study (FIS) and is capable of exercising that authority. In communities without the 

delegated permit authority, all development in the SFHA requires a permit from the Iowa DNR 

in addition to the local permit. There are currently 595 Iowa communities with identified SFHAs. 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 2-3

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS 2

Of these, only 136 have delegated permit authority from Iowa DNR. Projects that require a hydraulic analysis (bridges, dams, etc.) require an Iowa DNR permit prior to the granting of a local 

permit.

The Iowa DNR regulations require that new or 

substantially improved structures be elevated with 

the lowest floor 1 foot above the 1-percent-annual-chance flood elevation. Also, the Iowa DNR 

requires new or substantially improved buildings 

that are considered to be critical (such as hospitals and other medical care facilities; buildings 

containing documents, data, or instruments of high public value; buildings containing materials 

dangerous to the public; fuel storage facilities; etc.) to be elevated 1 foot above the 0.2-percentannual-chance flood elevation.

2.1.2 Wisconsin Floodplain Management Regulations

The floodplain management regulations in Chapter NR 116 of the Wisconsin Administrative 

Code, which have been in force since 1968, are more stringent than the minimum NFIP floodplain management requirements. Wisconsin’s floodplain management regulations prohibit 

building structures in, on, or over floodway areas if the structure is designed for human habitation. Only structures that are associated with open space use and low flood damage potential are 

allowed in the floodway. These low flood damage potential structures, however; are still subject 

to NFIP encroachment analyses and are not allowed if the project will increase flood elevations 

upstream or downstream by 0.01 foot or more. 

By contrast, minimum NFIP floodplain management requirements allow the construction of 

residential structures within the regulatory floodway as long as the Base (1-percent-annual-chance 

flood) Flood Elevation (BFE) is not increased by 

the construction. 

According to section 116.15(3) of Wisconsin’s 

floodplain management regulations, no modifications or additions to any buildings located in the 

floodway fringe are allowed unless: 1) a permit, 

special exception, conditional use, or variance 

has been granted, and 2) the modification or addition is placed on fill or is floodproofed and in 

compliance with section 116.13(2) of Wisconsin’s 

floodplain management regulations. 

An addition to an existing room in a nonconforming building or a building with a nonconforming 

Iowa Floodplain Management Regulations 

are available via the Iowa Legislature 

Search: http://search.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/

gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm

DEFINITION

A regulatory floodway is the channel of 

a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in 

order to discharge the base flood without 

cumulatively increasing the water surface 

elevation more than a designated height. 

Communities must regulate development 

in these floodways to ensure that there are 

no increases in upstream flood elevations. 

For streams and other watercourses where 

FEMA has provided BFEs, but no floodway 

has been designated, the community must 

review floodplain development on a caseby-case basis to ensure that increases in 

water surface elevations do not occur, or 

identify the need to adopt a floodway if adequate information is available.
2-4 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

2 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS

use may be allowed in the floodway fringe area 

on a one-time basis only if: 1) the addition has 

been granted by a permit, special exemption, 

conditional use or variance, 2) the addition does 

not exceed 60 square feet in area, and 3) the addition is 50 percent of the present assessed value 

of the building. 

Wisconsin’s requirements for new and substantially improved structures in the floodway fringe are 

more restrictive than those of the NFIP. The NFIP 

requires that new or substantially improved structures in the floodway fringe must be elevated to or 

above the BFE; however, Wisconsin requires 2 feet 

of freeboard above the BFE and dry land access 

for all new and substantially improved floodway 

fringe structures.

For development in a Zone A (an area subject to 

inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood 

event where detailed hydraulic analyses have 

not been performed and no BFEs have been determined), the NFIP requires communities to 

obtain, review, and reasonably utilize BFE data 

and floodway data from a federal, state, or other 

source. However, the Wisconsin DNR regulations 

require an approved engineering study (in which 

BFEs, floodway, and floodway fringe are determined) before building permits can be issued in 

all SFHAs, including Zone A. 

The Wisconsin DNR requires that development in 

a Zone A not cause an obstruction to flow or storage capacity of the floodplains and that any rise 

in BFEs be less than 0.01 foot. This regulation is 

more stringent than the corresponding minimum 

NFIP regulation, which allows a rise of no more than 1 foot, when developing in the floodplain (44 

CFR §60.3[d] [10]). The Wisconsin DNR regulation significantly restricts any development within 

a SFHA designated as Zone A. 

DEFINITIONS

In areas that fall within the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain, but are outside the 

floodway (termed the floodway fringe), 

development will, by definition, cause 

no more than a 1.0-foot increase in the 

1-percent-annual-chance water-surface elevation. Floodplain management through 

the use of the floodway concept is effective 

because it allows communities to develop 

in floodprone areas if they so choose, but 

limits the future increases of flood hazards 

to no more than 1.0-foot.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources defines a nonconforming 

building as an existing lawful building that 

is not in conformity with the dimensional 

or structural requirements of the floodplain 

zoning ordinance for the area of the floodplain which it occupies.

Dry land access is defined as a vehicular 

access route above the regional flood elevation connecting floodway development in 

the floodplain to land outside the floodplain.

The term regional flood refers to a flood 

determined to be representative of large 

floods known to have occurred in Wisconsin 

or that may be expected to occur on a particular lake, river, or stream once in every 

100 years, on average.

Wisconsin Floodplain Management Regulations are available online at http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/

code/nr/nr116.pdf.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 2-5

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS 2

2.1.3 NFIP Participation and Community Rating System

All of the communities in Iowa and Wisconsin studied by the MAT participate in the NFIP and 

have adopted floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed minimum NFIP requirements. One of the 17 communities visited in Iowa, and one of the 21 communities visited in 

Wisconsin participate in the NFIP’s Community Rating System (CRS) and range from Class 6 to 

Class 10. These two communities conduct floodplain management activities beyond the minimum 

requirements of the NFIP. 

Des Moines, in Polk County, Iowa, participates 

in the CRS program and has a CRS rating of 7. 

Examples of the floodplain management regulations implemented by Des Moines to earn this 

CRS status include:

n 1-foot freeboard requirement with new 

construction

n Substantial improvement regulations, which 

do not allow any additions to a structure 

in the floodplain that would increase the 

total square footage of the structure by 25 

percent 

n Protecting sanitary sewer systems from the 

1-percent-annual-chance flood. Sanitary 

sewer systems must be watertight or located 

on higher ground than the BFE.

n All new construction should have dry land 

access during the 1-percent-annual-chance 

flood event

n Open space credits for any open spaces in 

the SFHA (such as parks, natural preserves, 

etc.) that prohibit construction of structures 

Elm Grove, in Waukesha County, Wisconsin, also participates in the CRS program and has a CRS 

status of 6. Examples of the floodplain management regulations implemented by Elm Grove to 

earn this CRS status include:

n 2-foot freeboard requirement with new construction

n Cumulative substantial damage/improvement—a regulation that cumulatively sums the damage/improvements over the life of a structure and requires compliance with the floodplain 

management regulations once the substantial damage/improvement threshold is reached 

n All flammable explosive and chemical substances should be out of the floodplain (elevated 

or relocated)

n All weather access—any new roads built need to be above the BFE

The NFIP’s CRS is a voluntary incentive 

program that recognizes community floodplain management activities that exceed 

the NFIP requirements. CRS classifications 

range from 1 to 10, with 1 representing the 

most active and the most flood hazard-resistant communities. For CRS-participating 

communities, flood insurance premium 

rates are discounted in increments of 5 percent. Thus, a class 1 community receives a 

45-percent premium discount, while a class 

9 community receives a 5-percent discount 

(a class 10 receives no discount). The CRS 

classifications for communities are based 

on 18 creditable activities, organized under 4 categories: (1) public information, (2) 

mapping and regulations, (3) flood damage 

reduction, and (4) flood preparedness. Of 

the more than 900 communities nationwide 

that participate in the CRS, over 90 percent 

have a rating of 7, 8, or 9.
2-6 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

2 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS

n Acquisition mitigation regulations – the acquisition of floodprone structures

n Open space credits for any open spaces in the SFHA (such as parks, natural preserves, 

etc.) that inhibit construction of structures 

Coralville, in Johnson County, Iowa, had once 

participated in the CRS program, but due to a violation of the NFIP requirements, the CRS rating 

was changed to a 10. A CRS rating of 10 is equivalent to communities that are part of the NFIP, but 

do not participate in the CRS program. 

Tables 2-1 and 2-2 show the NFIP emergency and 

regular entry dates and effective FIRM date for 

each of the communities visited by the MAT in 

Iowa and Wisconsin. 

Table 2-1. NFIP Status for Iowa Communities Visited by the MAT

Jurisdiction NFIP Emergency 

Entry Date

NFIP Regular 

Entry Date Effective FIRM Date

Benton County N/A 09/10/08 06/03/08

 Vinton 07/18/74 03/02/81 06/03/08

Black Hawk County 10/20/75 11/17/82 11/17/82

 Cedar Falls 07/23/71 02/01/85 02/01/85

 La Porte City 02/02/76 01/02/81 03/16/04

 Waterloo 05/07/71 07/03/85 07/03/85

Bremer County 08/12/90 07/16/90 03/04/08

 Waverly 05/02/75 03/02/81 03/04/08

Buchanan County 12/17/90 09/01/91 07/16/08

 Independence 09/24/71 05/16/77 07/16/08

Butler County 07/05/94 11/06/00 11/06/00

 Clarksville 10/28/85 09/06/89 09/06/89

 New Hartford 11/06/74 09/29/86 09/29/86

 Shell Rock 10/01/91 05/01/92 07/05/01

DEFINITIONS

Pre-FIRM buildings are those built before 

the effective date of the first FIRM for a 

community. This means they were built before detailed flood hazard data and flood 

elevations were provided to the community 

and usually before the community enacted comprehensive floodplain management 

regulation.

Post-FIRM buildings are new construction 

and structures built after the effective date 

of the first FIRM for a community.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 2-7

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS 2

Jurisdiction NFIP Emergency 

Entry Date

NFIP Regular 

Entry Date Effective FIRM Date

Johnson County 08/01/79 08/19/85 02/16/07

 Coralville 08/23/74 09/29/78 02/16/07

 Iowa City 02/04/72 05/02/77 02/16/07

Linn County 01/05/79 12/15/82 12/15/82

 Cedar Rapids 08/13/71 12/15/82 12/15/82

 Palo 06/25/76 11/17/82 11/17/82

Louisa County 10/16/74 06/01/87 02/06/91

 Columbus Junction 07/29/76 02/06/91 02/06/91

 Oakville 08/05/75 08/01/86 02/06/91

Polk County 09/06/78 03/01/84 03/01/84

 Des Moines 09/06/74 02/04/81 07/15/88

Story County 06/01/78 06/01/83 02/20/08

 Ames 07/24/74 01/02/81 02/20/08

SOURCE: NFIP, CRS, CIS

Table 2-2. NFIP Status for Wisconsin Communities Visited by the MAT

Jurisdiction NFIP Emergency 

Entry Date

NFIP Regular 

Entry Date Effective FIRM Date

Columbia County 07/31/75 04/15/80 04/02/08

 Wisconsin Dells 07/17/75 12/18/84 06/17/08

Crawford County 03/19/71 04/20/73 05/18/00

 Gays Mills 04/12/73 06/15/78 03/05/90

 Soldiers Grove 04/09/71 04/03/84 03/05/90

Jefferson County 04/02/71 09/29/78 10/16/84

 Jefferson 04/23/71 05/26/72 08/01/84

 Fort Atkinson 11/13/70 08/06/71 06/01/84

Juneau County 07/03/75 09/18/91 09/18/91

 Wonewoc 07/18/75 09/30/88 09/18/91

Lafayette County 03/10/72 09/15/78 11/05/03

 Darlington 08/18/72 09/15/78 11/05/03

Milwaukee County N/A 12/01/78 09/26/08

 Milwaukee 01/30/74 03/01/82 11/19/08

 Wauwatosa 02/12/74 12/01/78 09/26/08

Table 2-1. NFIP Status for Iowa Communities Visited by the MAT (continued)
2-8 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

2 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS

Jurisdiction NFIP Emergency 

Entry Date

NFIP Regular 

Entry Date Effective FIRM Date

Richland County 06/16/75 09/27/91 09/27/91

 Viola 12/05/74 06/04/90 06/04/90

Rock County 02/08/74 08/01/83 08/19/08

 Janesville 03/26/71 03/31/72 08/19/08

Sauk County 09/07/73 09/17/80 03/07/01

 Baraboo 06/01/73 08/01/79 03/07/01

 La Valle 03/05/75 09/19/84 03/07/01

 North Freedom 04/22/75 09/19/84 03/07/01

 Reedsburg 05/21/75 03/04/85 03/07/01

 Rock Springs 04/30/75 09/18/85 03/07/01

 Spring Green 08/27/75 02/01/86 03/07/01

Vernon County 09/01/72 09/29/78 11/16/90

 La Farge 05/08/75 11/16/90 11/16/90

Waukesha County 05/25/73 08/01/83 11/19/08

 Elm Grove 05/01/75 07/19/82 11/19/08

SOURCE: NFIP, CRS, CIS

2.2 Building Codes

Model building codes include provisions pertaining to anticipated hazards such as wind, seismic, 

snow, and flood loads, as well as soil conditions. When a model building code, such as the 2006 

International Building Code (IBC) or the 2006 International Residential Code for One- and Twofamily Dwellings (IRC), is adopted by a jurisdiction, it is a legal document that provides regulations 

for the construction of buildings. 

The IBC is considered a performance-based model code with limited prescriptive-based requirements. The IRC is considered a prescriptive-based model code with some performance-based code 

requirements. Performance-based codes state the intended functional result of a code requirement, separate the intent from the means of compliance, and identify tools and methodologies to 

evaluate the functional result. Prescriptive-based codes contain descriptions of the requirements 

that have been empirically derived utilizing the accumulated judgment of a group of experts or by 

actual field experience. 

Both the IBC and IRC refer to standards, such as Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other 

Structures (ASCE 7) and Flood Resistant Design and Construction (ASCE 24), in order to maintain 

Table 2-2. NFIP Status for Wisconsin Communities Visited by the MAT (continued)
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 2-9

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS 2

a specific level of performance throughout the 

building codes. The reference standard ASCE 7, 

which is briefly described in Section 2.4, specifies 

the structural load requirements for design and 

includes means for determining dead, live, soil, 

flood, snow, and earthquake loads. The reference 

standard ASCE 24, which is briefly described in 

Section 2.5, provides minimum requirements for 

flood-resistant design and construction of structures located in flood hazard areas. The IBC and 

IRC are consistent with the minimum provisions 

of the NFIP that pertain to design and construction of buildings. 

2.2.1 Iowa Building Codes

The majority of municipalities in Iowa have adopted either the 2003 or 2006 editions of the IBC 

and IRC. Other communities in Iowa have adopted alternative building codes such as the 1997 

Uniform Building Code (UBC). A few communities in Iowa have not yet adopted commercial and 

residential building codes. Table 2-3 shows adopted codes for the municipalities in Iowa that were 

visited by the MAT. Flood requirements from the IBC and IRC are discussed in detail in Sections 

2.3.1 and 2.3.2.

Table 2-3. Commercial and Residential Building Codes Adopted in Iowa

Location Commercial Building Code Residential Building Code

Benton County

Unincorporated Areas No Building Codes No Building Codes

Vinton IBC 2006 IRC 2006

Blackhawk County 

Unincorporated Areas IBC 2003 IRC 2003

Cedar Falls IBC 2003 IRC 2003

La Porte City UBC 1997 UBC 1997

Waterloo IBC 2003 IRC 2003

Bremer County

All Areas IBC 2006 IRC 2006

Waverly IBC 2006 IRC 2006

Buchanan County

Unincorporated Areas No Building Codes No Building Codes

Independence IBC 2003 IRC 2003

Copies of the 1997 UBC, 2006 IBC, and 

2006 IRC are available through the ICC 

website at http://www.iccsafe.org/.

Copies of ASCE 7 and ASCE 24 can be obtained from the American Society of Civil 

Engineers (ASCE) website at https://www.

asce.org. (Note: These are referred to as 

“ASCE 7-05” and “ASCE 24-05” when the 

reference is to the specific version updated 

in 2005.)

The Wisconsin Uniform Dwelling Code 

(UDC) is available at http://www.legis.state.

wi.us/rsb/code/comm/comm020.html.

The Wisconsin Commercial Building Code 

(CBC) is available at http://www.legis.state.

wi.us/rsb/code/comm/comm060.html.
2-10 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

2 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS

Location Commercial Building Code Residential Building Code

Butler County

Unincorporated Areas No Building Codes No Building Codes

Clarksville No Building Codes No Building Codes

New Hartford No Building Codes No Building Codes

Shell Rock No Building Codes No Building Codes

Johnson County

All Areas IBC 2006 IRC 2006

Coralville IBC 2006 IRC 2006

Iowa City IBC 2006 IRC 2006

Linn County

Unincorporated Areas IBC 2006 IRC 2006

Cedar Rapids IBC 2006 IRC 2006

Palo IBC 2006 IRC 2006

Louisa County

Unincorporated Areas No Building Codes No Building Codes

Columbus Junction No Building Codes No Building Codes

Oakville No Building Codes No Building Codes

Polk County

Unincorporated Areas IBC 2006 IRC 2006

Des Moines IBC 2006 IRC 2006

Story County

Unincorporated Areas No Building Codes No Building Codes

Ames IBC 2006 IRC 2006

2.2.2 Wisconsin Building Codes

Wisconsin has adopted a statewide building and residential code. All communities must comply 

with the Wisconsin Uniform Dwelling Code (UDC) for residential construction and the Wisconsin 

Commercial Building Code (CBC) for commercial construction. The purpose of the Wisconsin 

UDC is to establish uniform statewide construction standards and inspection procedures for oneand two-family dwellings and manufactured dwellings. The purpose of the Wisconsin CBC is to 

protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public by establishing minimum standards for the 

Table 2-3. Commercial and Residential Building Codes Adopted in Iowa (continued)
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 2-11

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS 2

design, construction, maintenance, and inspection of public buildings, including multi-family 

dwellings and places of employment. The Wisconsin CBC is similar to the 2006 IBC, but has revisions that apply solely to the State of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin CBC does not explicitly address 

flood design and flood load regulations. Flood requirements from the Wisconsin UDC and the 

Wisconsin CBC are discussed in detail in Sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4.

2.3 Flood Requirements in Building Codes

In order to make federally backed flood insurance available in a community, the community must 

adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the NFIP. One way for communities to regulate new or substantially improved 

structures in mapped flood hazard areas is by adopting building codes such as the IBC, IRC, and 

the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) (referred to collectively as the I-Codes). These 

codes, in particular, contain provisions that are consistent with the minimum flood-resistant design and construction requirements of the NFIP.

2.3.1 Flood Requirements in the 2006 International Residential Code 

The IRC applies to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, 

equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal, and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade in height with a separate 

means of egress, and their accessory structures. The IRC provides minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, health, and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress, 

facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and 

property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment. 

In terms of flood-resistant construction, buildings and structures constructed in flood hazard areas should be designed and constructed in accordance with Section R324 of the IRC. Section R324 

discusses flood provisions for:

n Structural systems (R324.1.1)

n Flood-resistant construction (R324.1.2)

n Establishing the design flood elevation (R324.1.3)

n Lowest floor elevations (R324.1.4)

n Protection of mechanical and electrical systems (R324.1.5)

n Protection of water supply and sanitary sewage systems (R324.1.6)

n Flood-resistant materials (R324.1.7)

n Manufactured housing (R324.1.8)

n Elevation requirements (R324.2.1)

n Enclosed areas below design flood elevations (R324.2.2)

n Foundation design and construction (R324.2.3)

n Flood hazard areas (R324.2)

n Coastal high-hazard areas (R324.3)
2-12 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

2 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS

When a residential structure is being constructed in a flood hazard area, construction documents 

should include the delineation of flood hazard areas, design flood elevation, and all proposed 

floor elevations depending on the flood zone in which the residential structure is being constructed (R106.1.3).

2.3.2 Flood Requirements in the 2006 International Building Code 

The IBC is applied to multi-family and non-residential structures. This code applies to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, 

location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures. A portion of the IBC discusses 

construction within flood hazard areas. 

The IBC explains how to establish flood hazard areas for a community (Section 1612.3). A community/municipality must first adopt a flood hazard map and supporting data for the area in 

question. This map should include SFHAs identified by the FEMA FIS.

In terms of flood-resistant construction, buildings and structures constructed in flood hazard areas should be designed and constructed in accordance with the following sections of the IBC:

n Accessibility (1107.7.5)

n Elevation certificate (109.3.3)

n Existing structures (3403.1, 3407.2, 3410.2.4.1)

n Flood loads (1602.1, 1603.1, 1612, 3001.2, 3102.7)

n Flood resistance (1403.5, 1403.6)

n Flood-resistant construction (Appendix G)

n Grading and fill (1803.4, 1807.1.2.1)

n Interior finishes (801.1.3)

n Site plan (106.2)

n Ventilation, under floor (1203.3.2)

Codes and regulations regarding design and construction in flood hazard areas are not thoroughly explained in the IBC; however, they are incorporated through reference by appropriate 

engineering standards such as ASCE 7 and ASCE 24. IBC Sections 1203.3, 1612.4, 1612.5, 3001.2, 

G103.1, G401.3, and G401.4 require flood-resistant design and construction to comply with requirements in ASCE 24-05. 

For construction in SFHAs that is not subjected to high-velocity wave action, regulations regarding 

openings in walls and the equalization of hydrostatic forces should be in accordance with Section 

2.6.2.1 and 2.6.2.2 of ASCE 24-05 respectively. Dry floodproofing non-residential buildings should 

be documented to show that regulations conform to ASCE 24-05. 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 2-13

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS 2

2.3.3 Flood Requirements in the Wisconsin Uniform Dwelling Code

The Wisconsin UDC is a uniform statewide code that sets minimum standards for fire safety; structural strength; energy conservation; erosion control; heating, plumbing, and electrical systems; 

and general health and safety in new dwellings. The Wisconsin UDC covers one- and two-family 

housing units that have been built since June 1, 1980, and their additions or alterations. For residential homes that were built before June 1, 1980, the state does not have specific building codes. 

For older residential homes, the municipality may adopt any or no code. If a code is adopted, and 

a portion of the house is modified, remodeled, or there is new construction, that part of the home 

must adhere to the code adopted by the municipality. 

The Wisconsin UDC has a minimal amount of information regarding flood-resistant construction. 

It does, however, provide regulations with regard to constructing in the SFHA. All new construction in the floodway fringe must be elevated so that the lowest floor and all basement floor surfaces 

are located at or above the BFE. Additionally, the Wisconsin DNR requires that any increase in the 

flood elevation caused by development in the floodway fringe be less than or equal to 0.01 foot, 

based on a comparison of existing and proposed conditions, as discussed in Section 2.1.2 above. 

According to the Wisconsin UDC, Section 21.33, a certified dry-floodproofed basement may be 

placed no more than 5 feet below the BFE if an engineer has designed it to be watertight and 

impermeable. The certified dry-floodproofed basement does not have any limitations regarding 

occupancy. After Section 21.33, the Wisconsin UDC states that the Wisconsin DNR and FEMA have 

applicable regulations and guidelines for basements built below the BFE. Section NR 116.13 (2) 

(a) of the Wisconsin DNR states that

...an exception to the basement requirement may be granted by the department, but only 

in those communities granted such exception by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) on or before [the effective date of this rule].

Enclosed spaces that are not certified dry-floodproofed may be used as spaces for means of egress, 

entrance foyers, stairways, or storage for incidental and mobile items. These fully enclosed spaces 

must be designed to allow the hydrostatic pressure to equalize on both sides of an exterior wall 

by allowing the entry and exit of floodwaters. In order to effectively accomplish this and in accordance with the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards as set forth in 44 CFR §60.3(c)

(5), the following design criteria must be met:

n There must be a minimum of two openings on different sides of each enclosed area. If a 

building has more than one enclosed area, each area must have openings on exterior walls 

to allow floodwater to directly enter and exit.

n The total area of all openings must be at least 1 square inch for each 1 square foot of 

enclosed area.

n The bottom of each opening can be no more than 1 foot above the adjacent grade.

n Louvers, screens, or other opening covers must not block or impede the automatic flow of 

floodwaters into and out of the enclosed area and the cross-sectional area of such screens 

and louvers must be deducted from the opening’s net area.
2-14 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

2 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS

Other important regulations regarding construction in the floodplain found in the Wisconsin 

UDC include the following:

n For new construction, a registered land surveyor, architect, or engineer must certify the 

actual elevation in relation to the mean sea level of the lowest structural member required 

to be elevated by the provisions in the Wisconsin UDC.

n The structural systems of all residential structures must be designed, connected, and 

anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or permanent lateral movement due to structural 

loads and stresses at the BFE.

n All electrical and mechanical equipment must be placed above the BFE or be designed to 

prevent contact with the equipment in case of a flood up to the BFE.

n Areas below the BFE need to be constructed using flood-resistant materials and methods 

designed to minimize flood and water damage.

n The Wisconsin DNR floodplain ordinance requires contiguous dry land access from a 

structure to land outside of the floodplain.

The Wisconsin UDC does not reference floodplain requirements from codes and standards such 

as IBC 2006, ASCE 7-05, and ASCE 24-05. Instead, the Wisconsin UDC references Chapter NR 116 

of Wisconsin’s Floodplain Management Program. Section NR 116.16 states: 

When floodproofing measures are required by either a municipal floodplain zoning 

ordinance or some other regulation which incorporates by reference the floodproofing requirements of this chapter, such measures shall be designed to withstand the flood depths, 

pressures, velocities, impact and uplift forces and other factors associated with the regional 

flood, to assure that the structures are watertight and completely dry to the flood protection elevation without human intervention during flooding.

Therefore, additional flood protection is required by the local floodplain management ordinance 

for Wisconsin. 

2.3.4 Flood Requirements in the Wisconsin Commercial Building Codes

The Wisconsin CBC is similar to the IBC; however, it includes amendments specific to the State of 

Wisconsin. The four major differences for flood requirements between the two codes are related 

to flood design, flood loads, flood hazard areas, and grading/fill in flood hazard areas.

The Wisconsin CBC does not explicitly address:

n Flood design to be included in the construction documents (IBC 1603.1.6).

n Flood load (hydrostatic, high velocity, and wave loads) regulations (IBC 1612).

n Grading and fill in flood hazard areas from the IBC (IBC 1803.4).

n Floodproofing in flood hazard areas (IBC 1807.1.2.1).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 2-15

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS 2

Although the Wisconsin CBC does not explicitly state how full protection is provided to buildings located in SFHAs, it is accomplished by the use of notes explaining that the regulations and 

standards of other state agencies will apply to commercial buildings. Since the Wisconsin DNR’s 

floodplain management regulations are mandated by the state, both the Wisconsin CBC and NR 

116 must be followed. (See the NR 116 excerpt at the end of Section 2.3.3.)

2.4 Flood Requirements in ASCE 7-05

ASCE 7-05 provides minimum load requirements for the design of buildings and other structures. 

It discusses the provisions that should be applied to buildings and other structures located in areas 

prone to flooding as defined on a FEMA flood hazard map. Since 1995, ASCE 7 has included flood 

load provisions. The following sections of ASCE 7-05 address flood loads.

n Section 2.3 (Load Combinations, including different load combinations for Zone V and 

Coastal Zone A) 

n Section 5.3 (Design Requirements, which covers design loads, erosion and scour, and loads 

on breakaway walls)

n Section 5.4 (Flood Loads, which covers hydrostatic, hydrodynamic, wave, and impact loads, 

and load criteria for breakaway walls)

The IBC references the ASCE 7-05 standard only when discussing dry floodproofing. It defines 

dry floodproofing as a combination of design modifications that results in a building or structure, 

including the attendant utility and sanitary facilities, being watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capacity to resist 

loads as identified in ASCE 7-05.

The IRC does not explicitly refer to ASCE 7-05; however, the IRC has adopted ASCE 7-05 by reference, meaning that flood loads must be considered for buildings following the IRC. The Wisconsin 

UDC and Wisconsin CBC do not refer to this standard.

2.5 Flood Requirements in ASCE 24-05

ASCE 24-05 provides minimum requirements for flood-resistant design and construction of structures that are subject to building code requirements and that are located in whole or in part in 

flood hazard areas. The first edition of ASCE 24 was published in 1998 and is referenced in the 

2000 and 2003 editions of the IBC. The 2005 edition is a major revision and expansion of the 

standard, which is referenced in the 2006 IBC. The IBC states: “The design and construction of 

buildings and structures located in flood hazard areas, including flood hazard areas subject to 

high-velocity wave action, shall be in accordance with ASCE 24-05.”

ASCE 24-05 specifies minimum requirements for flood-resistant design and construction of buildings and structures located in flood hazard areas, including floodways, coastal high-hazard areas, 

and other high-risk flood hazard areas such as alluvial fans, flash flood areas, mudslide areas, 
2-16 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

2 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS

erosion-prone areas, and high-velocity areas. The basic design requirements that are addressed in 

ASCE 24-05 are:

n Flood loads (references ASCE 7-05)

n Load combinations (references ASCE 7-05)

n Elevation of the lowest floor

n Foundation requirements and geotechnical considerations

n Use of fill 

n Anchoring and connections

Materials, wet and dry floodproofing, utility installations, building access, and miscellaneous construction provisions are also included in sections of ASCE 24-05. In addition, ASCE 24-05 includes 

specifications for the design of pile, post, pier, column, and shear wall foundations. Considerable 

detail is specified for pilings as a function of pile types and connections.

The IRC, Wisconsin UDC, and Wisconsin CBC do not refer to ASCE 24-05. These codes are prescriptive and do not require specific designs for buildings that are constructed in agreement with 

the code.

2.6 Reducing Flood Losses Through the International Codes

(FEMA 9-7032)

With the publication of the I-Codes, the opportunity exists for communities to integrate building safety and floodplain management. In cooperation with the ICC, FEMA produced the guide 

Reducing Flood Losses through the International Codes: Meeting the Requirements of the National Flood 

Insurance Program to help communities decide how best to accomplish that integration in order 

to initiate or continue participation in the NFIP. The guide also includes detailed comparisons of 

the NFIP regulations and the flood resistant provisions of the I-Codes. It should be noted that this 

publication is neither a code nor standard. 

2.7 NFIP and State Floodplain Management Regulations and 

Performance Issues

The MAT noted several building design issues that were associated with NFIP and state floodplain management regulations. These building design issues dealt with basements, foundation 

and enclosure wall openings, substantial improvements, and dry-land access requirements. The 

subsections below help explain these regulations. Specific examples of these performance issues 

are discussed in Chapter 3 of the MAT report. 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 2-17

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS 2

2.7.1 Basements 

According to NFIP requirements, a basement is defined as any area of the building having its floor 

below ground level on all sides. NFIP regulations require that the lowest floor of a residential structure, including basement, built within the SFHA be at or above the BFE (44 CFR §60.3[c][2]). 

As noted in section 2.3.3, basements below the BFE, where the placement of engineered earthen 

fill was not used, are allowed only in communities that have obtained a basement exception from 

FEMA. Buildings with floodproofed basements must have their design certified by a registered 

engineer or architect and are more difficult and more expensive to construct than buildings elevated above the BFE. As of this date, only 54 communities nationwide are approved for residential 

basement exceptions, including Clive, Independence, and La Porte City in Iowa and Allouez, 

Ashwaubenon, Brown County, Depere, Green Bay, Howard, and Shiocton in Wisconsin. 

The MAT visited properties in La Porte City, Iowa, to observe basement construction in a basement-exception community and noted good examples of properly floodproofed basements that 

performed well during the flood (Chapter 3, Figure 3-43). The MAT also observed pre-FIRM structures with basements that experienced basement wall collapse due to hydrostatic forces (Chapter 

3, Figure 3-21). 

2.7.2 Foundation and Enclosure Wall Openings

NFIP regulations require that foundation and enclosure walls subject to the 1-percent-annualchance flood contain openings designed by a registered professional so as to permit the automatic 

entry and exit of floodwaters. These openings allow floodwaters to reach equal levels on both 

sides of the walls and thereby lessen the potential for damage from hydrostatic pressure. The requirement for openings applies to all new and substantially improved buildings in Zone A and 

is detailed in FEMA Technical Bulletin 1 (August 2008). NFIP regulations (44 CFR §60.3[c][5]) 

state that a community shall:

Require, for all new construction and substantial improvements, that fully enclosed areas 

below the lowest floor that are usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement and which are subject to flooding shall be designed 

to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry 

and exit of floodwaters.

The MAT observed several examples of improper construction of flood openings in Iowa, particularly among new construction and recently completed elevations. In some cases, flood openings 

were too high, or opening sizes were inadequate in relation to the square footage of the structure. 

The MAT also observed cases where openings appeared to be blocked by finished materials, such 

as drywall, indicating a possible compliance issue with both flood opening requirements and the 

requirements for areas below the BFE. Finished materials blocking flood openings may indicate a 

conversion of lower level areas into habitable space, a violation of the NFIP regulations. Chapter 

3, Figure 3-50, shows a newly elevated house, located in the SFHA, with inadequately sized vents, 

approximately 3 feet above grade. 
2-18 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

2 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS

2.7.3 Substantial Improvement

NFIP regulations (44 CFR §60.3) define substantial improvement as:

Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost 

of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the “start 

of construction” of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred 

“substantial damage,” regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, 

however, include either:

1. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local 

code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living 

conditions or

2. Any alterations of a “historic structure,” provided that the alteration will not preclude 

the structure’s continued designation as a “historic structure.”

Floodplain management requirements for new construction apply to substantial improvements. 

Increased Cost of Compliance coverage is available only on a structure that the community has 

determined is substantially damaged due to flooding.

There may be some cases where, in addition to repairs to damaged buildings, property owners may 

also want to make improvements, such as building a room addition onto the structure. It is likely 

that many flood-damaged homes in heavily impacted areas will require substantial improvement 

to make them habitable. Communities need to evaluate such proposals to determine whether the 

combined work (repairs and improvements) is a substantial improvement. The enforcement of 

proper codes and NFIP requirements will be crucial in protecting these structures in the future.

2.7.4 Dry Land Access Requirement

Wisconsin regulations require dry land access to development within the floodway fringe. 

According to Wisconsin State Statute NR 116.13, both residential and commercial development 

within the floodway fringe must be elevated to or above the regional flood height and have dry 

land access to the principal structure. Certain commercial yards, parking lots, and other accessory 

structures not connected to the principal structure may be below the regional flood height and 

not require dry land access; however, they should not be inundated more than 2 feet or subjected 

to velocities greater than 2 feet per second during the occurrence of the regional flood.

Figure 2-2 shows a house and driveway in Edgerton, Wisconsin, that was elevated on fill approximately 2 feet above the BFE. Figure 2-3 shows the location and BFE (784 feet) of the structure on 

a FIRM. This house is an example of a location that met the dry land access requirement from the 

Wisconsin State Statute NR 116.13. 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 2-19

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, BUILDING CODES, AND STANDARDS 2

Figure 2-3. Location of elevated house 

SOURCE: DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP

Figure 2-2. 

Elevated house and 

driveway on fill 

(Dane County, Wisconsin)

MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-1

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Residential, Historic, and 

Commercial Buildings

Chapter 1 described the magnitude, duration, and geographic extent of 

damage of the 2008 Midwest floods. Many areas experienced the worst 

flood in their recorded history with rivers cresting at unprecedented 

levels and flood elevations exceeding those anticipated during a design 

event, forcing tens of thousands of people to be evacuated from their 

homes. While the flooding affected seven states in the Midwest (South 

Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana, and 

Iowa), the most damage occurred in Iowa and Wisconsin. 

The MAT observed damages to residential, historic, and commercial buildings, as well as critical 

and essential facilities in the most affected Iowa and Wisconsin cities. Occupancy categories for 

buildings and other structures are defined by the American Society of Civil Engineers in two standards: ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, and ASCE 24, Flood Resistant

3

David L. Conrad

Larry Buss

Greg Gomez

Amit Mahadevia

Manuel A. Perotin

John van de Lindt
3-2 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Design and Construction. Chapter 3 of this MAT Report discusses Categories I and II (residential, 

historic, and commercial buildings); Chapter 4 discusses Categories III and IV (critical and essential facilities). Table 3-1 describes the ASCE occupancy categories.

Table 3-1. ASCE Occupancy Categories

Category Nature of Occupancy

I

Buildings and other structures that represent a low hazard to human life in the event of failure 

including, but not limited to:

n Agricultural facilities

n Certain temporary facilities

n Minor storage facilities

II All buildings and other structures except those listed in Categories, I, III, and IV

III

Buildings and other structures that represent a substantial hazard to human life in the event of 

failure including, but not limited to:

n Buildings and other structures where more than 300 people congregate in one area

n Buildings and other structures with day-care facilities with capacity greater than 150

n Buildings and other structures with elementary school or secondary school facilities with 

capacity greater than 250

n Buildings and other structures with a capacity greater than 500 for colleges or adult 

education facilities

n Health care facilities with a capacity of 50 or more resident patients but not having surgery 

or emergency treatment facilities

n Jails and detention facilities

n Power generating stations and other public utility facilities not included in Category IV

Buildings and other structures not included in Category IV (including, but not limited to facilities 

that manufacture, process, handle, store, use, or dispose of such substances as hazardous 

fuels, hazardous chemicals, hazardous waste, or explosives) containing sufficient quantities of 

hazardous materials considered to be dangerous to the public if released.

Buildings and other structures containing hazardous materials shall be eligible for classification 

as Category II structures if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the authority having 

jurisdiction by a hazard assessment as described in ASCE 24-05, Flood Resistant Design and 

Construction, Section 1.5.2 that a release of the hazardous material does not pose a threat to 

the public.

IV

Buildings and other structures designated as essential facilities including, but not limited to:

n Hospitals and other health care facilities having surgery or emergency treatment facilities

n Fire, rescue, ambulance, and police stations and emergency vehicle garages

n Designated earthquake, hurricane, or other emergency shelters

n Designated emergency preparedness, communication, and operation centers and other 

facilities required for emergency response

n Power generating stations and other public utility facilities required in an emergency
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-3

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Category Nature of Occupancy

IV

(cont.)

n Ancillary structures (including but not limited to, communication towers, fuel storage tanks, 

cooling towers, electrical substation structures, fire water storage tanks or other structures 

housing or supporting water, or other fire-suppression material or equipment) required for 

operations of Category IV structures during an emergency

n Aviation control towers, air traffic control centers, and emergency aircraft hangars

n Water storage facilities and pump structures required to maintain water pressure for fire 

suppression

n Buildings and other structures having critical national defense functions

Buildings and other structures (including but not limited to, facilities that manufacture, process, 

handle, store, use, or dispose of such substances as hazardous fuels, hazardous chemicals, 

hazardous waste, or explosives) containing extremely hazardous materials where the quantity 

of the material exceeds a threshold quantity established by the authority having jurisdiction.

Buildings and other structures containing extremely hazardous materials shall be eligible 

for classification as Category II structures if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the 

authority having jurisdiction by a hazard assessment as described in ASCE 24-05, Flood 

Resistant Design and Construction, Section 1.5.2 that a release of the extremely hazardous 

material does not pose a threat to the public. This reduced classification shall not be permitted 

if the buildings or other structure also function as essential facilities.

In detailing the damages observed by the MAT, Chapter 3 points out the importance of adhering 

to construction regulations and guidance involving such issues as foundation construction and anchoring, openings in foundation walls, elevation of new and existing facilities, placement of utility 

equipment, load path continuity, basements, mold and contamination, and regulatory requirements and actions. Chapter 3 also notes opportunities for building mitigation.

As noted in Chapter 1, site visits were conducted in Iowa and Wisconsin in August and September 

of 2008. As part of these site visits, information was gathered from local officials, facility managers, 

and homeowners, and photographs were provided to and taken by team members. 

The city of Cedar Rapids was the most heavily impacted of any community visited by the MAT. 

The city encountered some of the most dramatic and costly damage due to the amount of infrastructure in the inundation area as well as the depth and duration of the flood. Figure 3-1 shows 

the downtown area inundated by floodwater and the associated flood zone map. 

Table 3-1. ASCE Occupancy Categories (continued)
3-4 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-1. 

Floodwater in the downtown Cedar Rapids commercial district exceeded 6 feet in several buildings, as shown by 

the parking facility and surrounding properties (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).

Cedar River

0 250 500 750 1000 125 Feet

Area Shown in Photo

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Areas of Inundation Beyond 

Mapped Flood Zones
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-5

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-2 shows two buildings at the outer edge of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood zone 

(see also Figure 3-3). The waters were 4 feet above the first floor elevation at this location. This 

example highlights the residual risk and possibility of unexpected damage anywhere adjacent to 

even the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain.

Figure 3-2. 

Floodwaters covered 

1,300 blocks and 9.2 

square miles of Cedar 

Rapids (Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa).

Figure 3-3. 

Location of commercial buildings shown above at the outer edge of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood zone 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).

Site Shown in Figure

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Areas of Inundation Beyond 

Mapped Flood Zones
3-6 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Several other communities visited by the MAT also experienced flooding, although not as widespread as in Cedar Rapids, that exceeded the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood. Figures 3-4 to 3-10 

illustrate different magnitudes of flooding throughout areas visited by the MAT.

Figure 3-4.

Inundation in Gays Mills, 

Wisconsin, where most of 

the town including all of 

Main Street is located in 

the SFHA. Most buildings 

along Main Street 

experienced 3 to 5 feet of 

flooding. 

Figure 3-5.

Commercial and residential 

buildings in Rock Springs, 

Wisconsin, along the 

Baraboo River where the 

flood was estimated to be a 

0.2-percent-annual-chance 

flood were inundated 

with over 4 feet of water 

(dashed red line indicates 

the water line).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-7

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-6. 

This house in Oakville, 

Iowa, a community 

protected by a levee that 

was overtopped by the 

Iowa River, was flooded 

with over 7 feet of water. 

Figure 3-7. Buildings 

located within the 

SFHA along the Rock 

River in Rock County, 

Wisconsin, where the 

flood is estimated to have 

exceeded the 1-percentannual-chance flood, 

experienced 2 to 4 feet of 

flooding. 
3-8 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-8. 

The recently developed 

Coralville Conference 

Center (outlined in red) 

downstream of the 

Coralville Dam (outlined 

in blue) implemented 

emergency protective 

measures, primarily 

sandbags, to limit flooding 

to a few inches of water on 

the main floor (Coralville, 

Iowa). 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-9

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-9. 

The Coralville Conference Center is located on the former site of Edgewater Park and in the SFHA, 3 feet above the 

BFE. The two aerials reflect the development along Edgewater Drive over the past four decades (Coralville, Iowa). 

0 300 600 900 1200 150 Feet

Iowa River

Coralville Mariott Hotel

and Conference Center

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Edgewater Drive
3-10 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-10. 

Although the Conference 

Center suffered minor 

damage, the adjacent 

buildings had extensive 

interior damage on the first 

floor (Coralville, Iowa). 

 3.1 Residential Properties

As previously noted in this report, residential structures were subject to a greater than design level 

of flooding in several communities visited by the MAT. Figure 3-11 shows a Cedar Rapids residential neighborhood in the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain that had several feet of inundation. 

Flooding in Iowa and Wisconsin caused both velocity-flow and inundation damage; however, most 

of the damage was due to slow rising inundation. Due to high levels of soil saturation, these floodwaters also remained for weeks in some areas, much longer than typical flood events. The duration 

impacted recovery operations and hindered owners from returning to their properties to limit 

mold growth and further damages to their facility. The areas impacted by high-velocity flow were 

near floodways, at overtopped/breached levees, or near areas of flood flow constriction. The MAT 

surveyed single and multi-family residences, including some that were under repair at the time of 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-11

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

the MAT visit and some that had been constructed subsequent to the flood event. The MAT also 

looked at several examples of residential elevation and acquisition projects, and two locations that 

had been developed and removed from the SFHA by an approved LOMR-F. 

Figure 3-11. 

Floodwaters in a residential area of 

Cedar Rapids during the flood (Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa).

Cedar River

0 250 500 750 1000 125 Feet

Area Shown in Photo

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Areas of Inundation Beyond 

Mapped Flood Zones
3-12 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Communities conducted inspections and tagged buildings to allow citizens back into safe homes 

and businesses as quickly as possible, while keeping people out of unsafe structures (see Figure 

3-12). The magnitude of the event forced several jurisdictions to train and/or contract new staff 

to assist with damage assessments and code enforcement after the event. Several communities including Cedar Rapids and Oakville in Iowa, and Gays Mills in Wisconsin experienced flooding that 

required a substantial damage determination on practically every home because almost the entire 

SFHA was flooded. In Iowa, over 3,000 Residential Substantial Damage Estimate (RSDE) inspections were completed in the Cedar Rapids area alone, approximately half of which were deemed 

substantially damaged. Several communities contacted local home builders associations to help 

identify qualified personnel, trained the personnel, and used them to support code enforcement 

for repairs and reconstruction. 

Figure 3-12. 

Sample placard for 

a building that was 

deemed unsafe to enter 

by inspectors (Janesville, 

Wisconsin).

3.1.1 Overview of Damages

There was significant damage to homes in the SFHA throughout the areas visited by the MAT in 

Iowa and Wisconsin. Figure 3-13 provides a location map for the flood damaged homes located 

adjacent to the Cedar River that are shown in Figures 3-14 through 3-17. 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-13

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-13. Location map for Figures 3-14 through 3-17 (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).

Figure 3-14. 

Pre-FIRM house located 

in the SFHA at N Avenue 

NW. Floodwater reached 

the eaves of these houses 

located a few blocks from 

a levee (red line indicates 

flood level) (Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa).

Cedar River

0 250 500 750 1000 125 Feet

Levee

Houses Located on

N Avenue NW

Houses Located on

H Avenue NW

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood
3-14 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-15. 

Pre-FIRM home at N 

Avenue NW located in the 

SFHA. Water marks near 

top of door and window 

frame. Marks are several 

feet above the levee seen 

in the background (Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa).

Figure 3-16. 

Pre-FIRM house at H 

Avenue NW. Floodwaters 

reached the ceiling of the 

first floor in this house 

located outside the SFHA 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-15

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-17. 

This is another view of the 

house in Figure 3-16. The 

side wall and the adjacent 

structures are displaced 

in a way that suggests 

high-velocity water flows 

through this neighborhood 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa). 

The flooding of the living areas in residences caused damage to the architectural finishes, cabinetry, insulation, ductwork, electrical system, and appliances to the extent that they will most likely 

need to be removed and replaced. The MAT also observed damage to the wood framing, nails, 

and insulation, and the presence of mold, as a result of elevated moisture levels in post-flood walls, 

as evidenced in Figures 3-18 and 3-19. Such extensive damage can result from delayed recovery 

efforts. 

Figure 3-18. 

Condensation can be seen 

beading up on the inside 

face of the vapor barrier 

(red circle). The increased 

humidity has initiated the 

growth of black mold (blue 

circle), started the rusting 

of the nails (blue arrow), 

and the wood is still wet 

as can be seen by the 

dark patches on the studs 

(red arrow) (Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa). 
3-16 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-19. 

The kitchen countertops, 

cabinets, appliances, etc., 

had been submerged and 

destroyed (Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa). 

Some buildings located in the area of inundation were displaced from their foundations because they 

lacked sufficient connections to secure them. Figure 3-20 shows an older masonry foundation that 

did not have adequate connections to anchor the structure. 

Figure 3-20. 

This pre-FIRM house located 

in the SFHA was displaced 

from its foundation into 

the roadway adjacent to it. 

The photo below shows the 

building’s original location. 

The red line indicates the 

depth of flooding (Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-17

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

The most common form of structural damage to residential buildings observed by the MAT was 

the failure of foundation walls, especially those constructed of unreinforced masonry, as a result of 

lateral pressures from saturated soils and hydrostatic pressure, as illustrated in Figures 3-21 to 3-27. 

Figure 3-21. 

Failure of unreinforced 

masonry foundation 

walls due to hydrostatic 

pressure observed in 

various locations in Iowa.

Figure 3-22. 

Collapse of a foundation wall due to hydrostatic forces 

(Viola, Wisconsin).
3-18 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-23. 

This foundation wall 

collapsed due to 

hydrostatic pressure 

(Reedsburg, Wisconsin).

Figure 3-24. 

This basement wall failed 

and almost collapsed due 

to lateral pressures from 

saturated soils (Shell Rock, 

Iowa).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-19

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-25. 

This house had two walls 

that were damaged due 

to hydrostatic pressure 

(Reedsburg, Wisconsin).

DEFINITION

Hydrostatic force is a force exerted by water at rest, including lateral pressure 

on walls and uplift (buoyancy) on floors

Flood

Level

Ground

Bouyancy Force

Hydrostatic Pressure Bouyancy Force

Additional Pressure From Saturated Soil
3-20 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-26. 

Example of a completed 

foundation wall repair that 

included vertical steel 

reinforcement and grout 

throughout the repaired 

wall to improve the 

strength and performance 

of the foundation (Waverly, 

Iowa).

Figure 3-27. 

Interior view of the 

completed foundation wall 

repair in Figure 3-26; the 

owner stated that they 

placed horizontal steel 

reinforcement where 

possible along the top 

row of masonry blocks 

to create a bond beam. 

The yellow and blue lines 

are suggested reinforcing 

locations. This wall shows 

an alternative of external 

reinforcing of the wall 

using steel angles (red 

arrows) (Waverly, Iowa).

It is important to remember that repairing and reinforcing only the failed portions of a basement 

will not completely address weaknesses in the structure, and the basement will remain vulnerable 

to failure during future floods. In most homes with basements, all basement walls are constructed similarly and have similar strengths (see text box). When walls are similarly constructed, the 

relative performance of individual walls becomes a function of the loads applied to them and not 

of their strengths. Walls fail not because they are greatly weaker than adjacent walls but because 

The IRC suggests a #5 bar every 48” for these masonry walls holding 

back 5 feet of fill not subject to hydrostatic pressure from groundwater. 

In the event that groundwater is in the soils in the unbalance backfill, the 

IRC requires engineering design. The reinforcing required to withstand 5 

feet of water-laden soils is approximately a #5 bar every 16”, or one per 

block, three times the number shown. Bond beams are recommended 

at all opening perimeters as well as at the top and bottom of the wall. 

Horizontal joint reinforcing should also be used every 16” vertically (blue 

dashes in Figure 3-27).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-21

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

the loads on them are greater. When a basement 

wall fails during a flood, the failure typically allows water to flow into the basement. Water filling 

a basement immediately reduces the forces on 

the remaining walls and essentially denies those 

walls the opportunity to fail. When basement walls 

are only partially reconstructed, the original walls 

that did not fail remain relatively weak and vulnerable during future floods. 

Most structures visited by the MAT were impacted by water velocities that were slow enough that 

the buildings showed signs of inundation but not 

movement; however, there were occasional incidences of high-velocity flow that moved structures 

off their foundations. Buildings near breached or overtopped levees were most susceptible to 

high-velocity floodwaters that caused scour, carried large flood-borne debris, and imposed hydrodynamic forces that impacted the structural integrity of the building. In some areas, major 

structural damage resulted to both the foundation and the superstructure. Some structures were 

displaced from their foundations and driven into nearby spaces, roads, and the river. Figure 3-28 

shows a house impacted by high-velocity floodwater. 

Figure 3-28. 

The house on the left experienced high-velocity flow that passed through the lower level of the structure. The 

house on the right had living space at the same elevation, and the rear of the house was displaced. The red 

outline is the original location of the wall; the red arrow points to the location of the wall after the flood. This area 

experienced flooding that exceeded the estimated 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood (Coralville, Iowa).

When basement walls fail, they typically fail 

in flexure, by trying to bend in toward the 

house. That is, their resistance to bending 

(flexure) is less than the bending caused by 

the lateral loads from floodwater and retained 

soils. Flexural stresses in a basement wall 

range from positive (compression) stresses on the outside surfaces of the walls and 

can become negative (tensile) stresses on 

the walls’ inside surfaces. Since unreinforced 

masonry (and concrete) is inherently strong 

in compression but weak in tension most 

flexural failures are tensile failures.
3-22 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Several homes experienced flows with sufficient velocity that the houses were displaced from their 

foundations and moved several yards, as shown in Figures 3-29 through 3-35. 

Figure 3-29. 

This garage was swept 

away and over the adjacent 

levee. The remnants of 

the garage are seen in the 

right edge of the inset (red 

arrow) (Waterloo, Iowa).

DEFINITION

Hydrodynamic force is imposed on an object, such as a building, by water flowing against and around it.

Drag Effect on Sides

Frontal Impact on

Upstream Side

Negative Pressure/Suction on Downstream Side

Building

or Building 

Element

Depth of Water

Drag Effect on Sides

Frontal Impact on

Upstream Side ag E

FLOW
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-23

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-30. 

The red arrow traces the path of the displaced structure shown in Figure 3-29. The debris field was found 

approximately 250 feet away from its origin (Waterloo, Iowa).

Figure 3-31. 

This foundation wall was 

subject to scour caused 

by high-velocity flow after 

a levee was overtopped 

by floodwater (Oakville, 

Iowa).

0 250 500 750 1000 125 Feet

Sans Souci Drive

and Surrounding Area

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood
3-24 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-32. 

These failed connections 

were used to secure a 

home to a reinforced 

concrete foundation wall 

and were spaced every 6 to 

7 feet (Oakville, Iowa).

Figure 3-33. 

The home that was on this 

foundation was moved 

several hundred feet 

away by the floodwater 

that overtopped a levee 

(Oakville, Iowa).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-25

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-34. 

The home actually 

remained intact after 

being forced away from 

its foundation (this is the 

same manufactured home 

referenced in Figures 3-31 

to 3-33) (Oakville, Iowa).

Figure 3-35. The framing 

for the portion of the 

home that remained in 

place was bolted down to 

the foundation (this is the 

same manufactured home 

referenced in Figure 3-31 

through 3-34) (Oakville, 

Iowa).

Buildings constructed on open foundations in areas that experienced high-velocity flow remained 

in place and because they were generally elevated higher, suffered less damage. Figures 3-36 to 

3-38 are examples of residential buildings constructed on open foundations. The buildings were 

located near the home that was relocated and illustrated in Figures 3-31 to 3-35.
3-26 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-36. 

Residential building 

constructed on open 

foundation that suffered 

considerably less damage 

than those on closed 

foundations in the same 

area (Oakville, Iowa).

Figure 3-37. 

Residential building 

constructed on open 

foundation that suffered 

considerably less damage 

than those on closed 

foundations in the same 

area. Slender columns 

such as those shown here 

offer little resistance to 

lateral loads that can occur 

from flooding and debris. 

Accounting for gravity 

and lateral loads, not 

just elevation, should be 

considered during design 

(Oakville, Iowa).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-27

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-38. 

Residential building 

constructed on open 

foundation that suffered 

considerably less damage 

than those on closed 

foundations in the same 

area (Oakville, Iowa).

3.1.2 Residential Basements

Basements in the Midwest have traditionally been constructed as part of residential houses. They provide protection from tornadoes, aid in designing for frost depth, and provide 

additional usable space at low cost when part of the initial construction. However, their belowgrade location makes them a liability during floods. Throughout the areas visited by the MAT, 

groundwater entered basements through pre-existing cracks and openings in the floors and 

walls (see Figure 3-39).

Because of their low elevation, it is difficult to keep water out of basements when the water level is 

higher than the basement floor. In addition, keeping water out is not advised because of potential 

structural damage caused by floodwater-saturated soil exerting additional pressure against basement walls. As discussed in the previous section, in 

several instances the basement walls failed due to 

hydrostatic forces. However, several homeowners 

indicated they opened basement doors and windows so that floodwater could readily enter and 

equalize the hydrostatic forces on the basement 

walls. The intrusion of floodwater resulted in significant damage to basement contents and walls, 

finishes, and floor coverings. In many homes, the 

mechanical and electrical systems were located 

in the basement for convenience and space concerns, and, as a result, the systems were severely 

damaged. Figures 3-40 and 3-41 show a displaced 

water heater and other utilities that were damaged due to flooding.

DEFINITION

Basement is defined as an area of a building having its floor sub-grade (below ground 

level) on all sides. The lowest floor of a residential building including basement must 

be at or above the BFE. Basements below 

the BFE are allowed only in communities 

that have obtained a basement exception 

from FEMA.
3-28 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-39. 

Basement windows, like 

the ones on these houses, 

were typical locations 

for floodwater to enter 

a basement (Gays Mills, 

Wisconsin).

Figure 3-40.

This basement sustained 

damage to the mechanical 

and plumbing systems of 

the home (Waverly, Iowa).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-29

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-41. 

Basement located in a circa 1880s house. This basement has a furnace and other utilities that were inundated 

with 6 to 8 feet of standing water (Rock Springs, Wisconsin).

After a flood, homeowners should exercise extreme caution if their basement is inundated. 

Homeowners should not pump water out of a basement immediately following a flood. Even after 

the flood crest has passed and floodwater has receded, homeowners should avoid removing water 

from a basement too quickly so as to prevent basement wall and floor failure due to hydrostatic 

forces. Although most property owners impacted by the 2008 floods knew not to pump out their 

basements, Figure 3-42 provides an example of a basement that was pumped out too soon.

Figure 3-42. 

This foundation wall 

collapsed when the 

homeowner prematurely 

pumped water out of the 

basement (Palo, Iowa).

The NFIP floodplain management criteria at 44 CFR §60.6(c) allow exceptions to permit construction of floodproofed basements along streams in certain flood zones and when flood characteristics 

throughout the community meet specified criteria (see Chapter 2). 
3-30 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

The MAT visited La Porte City, Iowa, one of the communities approved for residential basement exceptions. The certified floodproofed basements visited had drainage systems with sump 

pumps and reinforced concrete walls and performed as designed with no structural failures 

observed or reported. Figure 3-43 shows a residential property with an engineered basement in 

La Porte City.

Damage in one newly engineered basement was 

reported by a homeowner where floodwater exceeded the floodproofing design elevation. These 

damages were in a basement just outside the 

SFHA (see Figure 3-44). 

Figure 3-43. 

Post-FIRM construction 

with a basement in a 

community approved for 

residential basement 

floodproofing. The 

basement performed as 

designed with a pump 

removing all flood and 

groundwater that entered 

(La Porte City, Iowa). 

Certified residential basements are floodproofed with walls that are impermeable, 

walls and floors that are capable of resisting 

hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the 

effects of buoyancy resulting from flooding, 

and designed so that minimal damage will 

occur from floods exceeding the floodproofing design elevation (which must be at least 

1 foot above the BFE). These basements 

must be certified by a professional engineer 

or architect using FEMA form 81-78. 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-31

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-44. 

This house located 

just outside the SFHA 

suffered no damage on 

the first floor (unlike the 

adjacent property), but 

the basement suffered 

damages to architectural 

finishes, electrical 

systems, and contents 

(Palo, Iowa).

It is important for communities to ensure basements are removed (unless properly approved) 

when substantially damaged properties are being elevated or reconstructed in the SFHA. Figures 

3-45 and 3-46 are examples of completed and ongoing elevation projects where basements were 

kept in the SFHA. 

Figure 3-45. 

Completed elevation 

project where the 

basement was not 

removed; this violation 

was recorded prior to the 

2008 floods (Coralville, 

Iowa).
3-32 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-46. 

Ongoing elevation of 

property located in 

the floodplain where 

homeowner was planning 

to keep the basement 

(Vinton, Iowa).

0 250 500 750 1000 125 Feet

Cedar River

House Shown in Figure 3-46

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Figure 3-47. Location map for Figure 3-46 (Vinton, Iowa).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-33

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

3.1.3 Residential Post-FIRM Elevated Buildings

The MAT visited numerous residential sites where owners had either already elevated their existing homes to avoid flooding or were in the process of doing so. Throughout Wisconsin, properties 

were elevated on fill two or more feet above the BFE (see Figure 3-48).

Figure 3-48. 

New construction elevated on fill with 

2 feet of freeboard, which was not 

flooded during the event (Jefferson, 

Wisconsin).

The Koshkonong, Wisconsin, community had several ongoing elevation projects of existing homes 

at the time of the MAT visit (see Figure 3-49).

0 500 1000 1500 2000 250 Feet

General Location of

House Shown in Figure

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Floodway
3-34 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-49. 

Existing house being 

elevated 2 feet above 

the BFE (Koshkonong, 

Wisconsin).

The MAT observed several elevated buildings in the SFHA without openings in their foundation 

walls that met the NFIP regulations. Several buildings did not have any openings while others either 

did not have enough or they were not at the proper elevation. The openings on the newly elevated 

house shown in Figure 3-50 are not within one foot of either interior or exterior grade as required. 

Figure 3-50. 

Recently completed 

elevation project, properly 

elevated above BFE; 

however, the foundation 

does not have openings 

at the proper height 

(red circles). The crawl 

space floor is at the same 

elevation as the exterior 

grade (New Hartford, Iowa).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-35

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figures 3-51 through 3-57 illustrate additional observations made by the MAT related to openings 

that were not in compliance with NFIP regulations. 

Figure 3-51. 

This property, which was 

constructed not long 

before the Midwest floods, 

is elevated several feet 

above BFE and was the 

least damaged along 

a row of more than 50 

riverfront properties (Iowa 

City, Iowa).

Figure 3-52. 

The house in Figure 3-51 is located in River Front Estate Acres depicted above. The lots are located on the river’s 

edge in the SFHA (Iowa City, Iowa).

0 300 600 900 1200 150 Feet

River Front Estate Acres

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Major Hydrology

River Front Estate Acres Parcels
3-36 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-53. 

This riverfront house’s two-car garage 

was one of only a few properties 

throughout the areas visited by the MAT 

with proper flood vent openings (Iowa 

City, Iowa).

Figure 3-54. 

Unlike the garage, the 

riverfront house’s flood 

openings were obstructed 

(Iowa City, Iowa).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-37

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-55. 

The homeowner had 

covered the openings on 

both the house and garage 

during the flood (Iowa City, 

Iowa). 

Figure 3-56. 

Foundation opening that does not conform to NFIP 

requirements for openings in foundation walls and 

walls of enclosures for structures in the floodplain 

(Blackhawk Island, Wisconsin).
3-38 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-57. 

This house located in the 

SFHA had openings for 

ventilation of the crawl 

space, but were too high 

to be compliant flood 

openings (Gays Mills, 

Wisconsin).

Figure 3-58 shows an example of a house with openings at the proper height.

Figure 3-58. 

This house located in 

the SFHA had openings 

installed within 12 inches of 

exterior and interior grade 

(La Valle, Wisconsin).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-39

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

The MAT observed several ongoing elevation projects, most of which were being funded by the homeowner without federal grant or insurance money. In each case, homeowners were meeting their 

floodplain management ordinances for required elevation, and several were actually exceeding 

local requirements and elevating 2 to 3 feet higher to avoid future damages. Figures 3-59 through 

3-62 illustrate observations at ongoing elevation projects. 

Figure 3-59. 

Existing house in the 

process of being elevated 

by homeowner (Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa).

Figure 3-60. 

Most foundations 

were being built with 

anchor bolts to create 

a connection between 

the elevated house and 

the new foundation. 

For this project to be 

effective there must be 

a continuous load path 

and the use of frequently 

spaced reinforced cells in 

the block foundation walls. 

This house is located in 

the SFHA and is being 

elevated approximately 4 

feet above the BFE (Iowa 

City, Iowa).
3-40 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-61. 

This foundation has a well established layout for 

anchoring the sill plate. This connection is critical 

to the proper performance of the building in highload events (Parkersburg, Iowa). 

Figure 3-62. 

Ongoing elevation of a property located in the SFHA where the foundation 

is prepared to establish secure connection between the foundation 

wall and the existing house. Upon completion, the house will have a 

crawlspace with openings at the proper elevation (Gays Mills, Wisconsin). 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-41

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Local involvement in adoption of current building codes, strong floodplain ordinance regulation, 

and participation in acquisition programs appears to be an effective means of managing development in the floodplain. This is evidenced by the limited amount of new construction observed in 

the SFHA. Those buildings that are built in the SFHA are elevated above the BFE, i.e., with freeboard (see Figures 3-63 and 3-64). 

Figure 3-63. 

Structure in Reedsburg, 

Wisconsin, where the 

lowest floor is elevated 2 

feet above BFE (red line 

shows the high water 

mark). The insert shows 

the interior of the adjacent 

pre-FIRM building had 3 

feet of water above the 

first floor.
3-42 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-64. 

This residence was 

elevated on fill above 

the BFE in Gays Mills, 

Wisconsin after the 2007 

floods, and floodwater did 

not reach the first floor in 

2008.

3.1.4 Residential Acquisitions

Since 1993, FEMA has funded more than 2,000 acquisition projects in Iowa and Wisconsin. 

The acquisitions were completed in conjunction with states and other federal agencies. These 

agencies and programs include the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Flood 

Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program, the Community 

Development Block Grants through the Wisconsin Department of Commerce; Stewardship 

Funds through the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; and Municipal Flood Control 

grants through the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. In Iowa, the USACE has also had 

a prominent role in acquisition projects. The acquisition properties visited by the MAT clearly 

show that the programs had successfully removed residences from areas that would have been 

flooded during the 2008 floods and, if they had not been removed, they would have sustained 

significant damages. The acquisition projects visited were all within the SFHA. Given that the 

majority of the communities visited were impacted by a greater than 1-percent-annual-chance 

flood, the damages avoided by these acquisitions are estimated to be in the millions of dollars. 

Figure 3-65 shows the location of an acquisition project completed with federal mitigation funding made available after the 1993 floods. 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-43

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-65. 

Site of a 1994 clearance 

project where multiple 

residential structures were 

acquired under the FEMA 

HMGP. This area is in the 

SFHA. Based on observed 

high water marks, it is 

estimated the acquired 

buildings would have had 

at least 1 foot of water 

in them (Independence, 

Iowa).

Figure 3-66. Location map for Figure 3-65 (Independence, Iowa).

0 750 1500 2250 3000 375 Feet

Wapsipinicon River

FEMA-Funded Acquisition Projects

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Floodway
3-44 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

When conducting wide-scale acquisition and relocation projects, it is important to consider 

long-term plans for the area. This helps ensure that homes subject to future flood damages do 

not remain and that they are not acquired and relocated or elevated in a random fashion. FEMA 

317, entitled Property Acquisition Handbook for Local Communities, addresses such issues and lays 

out a framework to help communities successfully implement property acquisition projects. A 

patchwork approach to acquisition can lead to homes remaining in the neighborhood that are 

isolated between vacant lots. The effect of raising some homes within a floodprone area while 

others are acquired may create a strain on public services, utilities, and emergency access and 

response. In addition, any isolated homes may be eligible for future mitigation assistance such 

as elevation that may not be consistent with the need for a community to permanently vacate 

such areas in order to reduce the cost of providing perpetual infrastructure services and mowing and maintaining the vacant lots. Figure 3-67 shows the benefit of long-term planning versus 

a patchwork approach. Having a few remaining structures within such multiple vacant lots does 

not allow the conversion of the vacated lots into a sustainable use such as ecosystem restoration 

and/or open space based recreation.

Figure 3-67. 

The top photos show a project where the community acquired and relocated multiple residences in the SFHA. The 

lower left image is one of a few sporadic completed elevations in the same area, and the lower right is an ongoing 

elevation project (Cedar Falls, Iowa). 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-45

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

A majority of the acquisition projects observed by the MAT were funded by FEMA and other federal agencies. In addition, some communities budgeted funding to finance mitigation projects 

internally. For example, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District Flood Management Program 

manages over $100 million annually for mitigation projects through funding collected from sewage disposal fees. The projects include creating increased temporary water storage, improving the 

sewer system to avoid backups during floods, and acquiring developed property to convert land 

use to open space or undeveloped property to ensure it remains open (see Figure 3-68). 

Figure 3-68. 

Site of successful 

acquisition of several 

houses in the SFHA. 

The acquisitions were 

completed using local 

funds to convert the 

area to open space. Had 

the houses remained in 

place, they would have 

been impacted by 1 to 2 

feet of flooding in 2008 

(Milwaukee, Wisconsin).

3.1.5 Residential Properties – Other

3.1.5.1 Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F) 

The Idyllwild subdivision in Iowa City was built on 

fill approximately 10 to 15 years ago (see Figures 

3-69 through 3-72). As shown in Figure 3-70, this 

area was originally mapped in the regulatory floodplain. However, fill was added to this subdivision 

site through a LOMR-F to raise the land elevation 

and remove it from the regulatory floodplain. 

A LOMR-F is FEMA’s modification of the SFHA 

shown on the FIRM based on the placement of 

fill outside the existing regulatory floodway. All 

requests for changes to effective maps, other than 

those initiated by FEMA, must be made in writing 

through the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the 

FEMA recognizes that changes will be 

required on the flood maps and has a mechanism for addressing them. One method for 

addressing a change to the floodplain is via 

the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) process. 

The presence of a LOMR simply indicates 

a reduced risk and removes the regulatory 

flood purchase requirement for mortgages 

in the area covered by the LOMR. It does 

not guarantee the area will not be flooded. 

The fact that it was previously mapped in 

the SFHA is evidence of potential flood risk.
3-46 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

community or an official designated by the CEO. Because a LOMR-F officially revises the effective 

NFIP map, it is a public record that the community must maintain. Any LOMR-F should be noted 

on the community’s master flood map and filed by panel number in an accessible location.

Although most of the development was considered outside the floodplain based on a LOMR-F, 

it suffered extensive damages. (The LOMR-F is not reflected on the map shown in Figure 3-70.) 

The community spent over $2 million in initial clean up costs to remove damaged contents and 

prevent further damage (e.g., mold); repair estimates require an additional $10 million from 

property owners. 

Figure 3-69. 

This is the historic 

Coralville area circa 1960 

from U.S. Department of 

Agriculture archives. The 

red arrow indicates the 

location of the flooded 

subdivision (Iowa City, 

Iowa).

Two months after the flood, only one residence out of more than 90 residences in the subdivision 

was occupied. This residence had all living areas located on the second floor along with the hot 

water heater, air handling unit, laundry room, and kitchen, which illustrates the benefits of careful selection of these locations to ensure building performance during a design level event. The 

adjoining single-story unit was inundated with 3 to 5 feet of floodwater and suffered 2 to 3 times 

the economic losses (see Figure 3-72).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-47

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-70. 

This is the Idyllwild community (see red arrow) shown relative to the natural floodplain with the 1-percent and 

0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplains highlighted without the elevation on fill being taken into consideration. 

The blue arrow is the position that the upper left photo in Figure 3-72 was taken from. This area experienced a 

<0.2-percent-annual-chance flood (Iowa City, Iowa).

Figure 3-71. 

This is the Idyllwild 

community (see red arrow) 

shown during the flood 

event. The red arrow is 

the location of the house 

shown in Figure 3-72 

(Iowa City, Iowa).

0 300 600 900 1200 150 Feet

Iowa River

Idyllwild Community and

Surrounding Area

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood
3-48 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-72. 

Site of a subdivision built on fill during the early 1990s, considered outside the floodplain based on LOMR-F. The dashed 

line in the upper right photo indicates the floodwater level. The center right and left photos show utilities located on the 

second floor level of the residence in the upper right photo. The bottom photos illustrate interior damage to the adjacent 

properties. The upper left photo was taken from the position noted in Figure 3-70 (Iowa City, Iowa).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-49

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

One challenge noted by the MAT was the difficulty in repairing the party-wall between units in the 

Idyllwild community. The party-wall was constructed in three layers (see Figure 3-73). The gypsum 

wallboard was applied to each layer successively. Then the next portion of framing and another 

layer of gypsum wall board were installed. The floodwaters damaged all the layers of the drywall 

in the party-wall. The damaged material can be broken down and easily removed. New material 

comes in 4-foot by 8-foot or 4-foot by 12-foot sheets. But since the spacing between studs is 16 inches, there is no practical way to replace the inner sheets. 

Figure 3-73. 

The majority of the units 

throughout the subdivision 

were uninhabitable two 

months after the event; 

several issues regarding 

re-occupancy will need to 

be resolved such as repair 

of the firewall system 

dividing the units (Iowa 

City, Iowa).

Another difficulty is that the newly removed wall board creates a single continuous open corridor 

between all units. With some units being ground level garden units and others being two-story 

units, the living space of some units is now open to the adjacent garage and automobiles. Reoccupancy of these units should be carefully monitored to ensure that life-safety and security issues 

are not compromised in the interest of rapid recovery. 

The experience of the Idyllwild community underscores the importance of communicating risk 

even for areas that are considered to be outside the floodplain and the need for property owners 

to consider carrying flood insurance in these areas, something the homeowners association had 

contemplated in the late 1990s. In addition, it illustrated the advantages of designing buildings so 

that the more expensive components (such as the kitchen and utility room) are located on upper 

floors and the lower floors are restricted to open or storage space, especially in areas where there 

is a residual risk of flooding. 
3-50 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

3.1.5.2 Storage Tanks

The NFIP requires that storage tanks be elevated above the BFE or be made watertight and anchored to resist floatation, collapse, or lateral movement resulting from hydrodynamic and 

hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. The MAT observed numerous storage tanks 

throughout the communities visited that were not properly secured (see Figure 3-74). These unanchored tanks not only create more debris, but also generate a serious threat to public safety and 

the environment. 

Figure 3-74. 

Improperly anchored 

storage tanks in the SFHA 

(North Freedom, Wisconsin, 

and Iowa City, Iowa). 

3.1.5.3 Boat Houses

The Ellis Boat Harbor is located in Cedar Rapids along the Cedar River with structures on the 

water. Prior to the 2008 floods, there were over a hundred homes in this area, but several of the 

houses were forced downstream during the flood, crashing into a railroad bridge downstream. 

The anchoring systems were insufficient to secure the structures, and almost half of the houses became floodplain debris (see Figures 3-75 to 3-78). 

These anchorages were welded to the face of a light steel sheet pile section. Marine anchorages 

typically need to be positively tied into an anchor wall or dead-man system. These anchor points 

need to be designed to maintain their design capacity after years of corrosion similar to the design 

of a steel sheet pile bulkhead. All possible loading conditions need to be considered when designing these structural components. The height of the water aggravated the condition when relatively 

short ramps/ties were used. The ramps folded under the boat house generating tremendous prying forces. 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-51

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-75. 

Typical boathouse in the 

Ellis Boat Harbor. Red 

arrows point to damaged 

anchorages (Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa). 
3-52 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-76. 

If these boat houses 

remain, these anchorages 

should be much more 

robust and tied into more of 

the upland structure such 

as an anchor wall or deadman system and help avoid 

damage to the bulkhead 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).

Figure 3-77. 

About half of the houses 

were forced loose by the 

flooding and had to be 

recovered throughout the 

floodplain (Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa). 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-53

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-78. 

Several houses were displaced downstream 

against a railroad bridge (Cedar Rapids, Iowa). 

3.2 Historic Buildings

Mitigation and recovery strategies for historic buildings and structures should be designed to 

preserve the historic character of the properties. Assistance with this process can be found in 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, 

Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Secretary of Interior Standards) from 

the Department of the Interior Guidelines for the treatment of historic properties, which is available at the following websites: http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/rhb/stand.htm and 

http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/rhb/guide.htm. 

Additional resources can be found on the National Institute of Building Sciences website, most 

importantly, the Whole Building Design Guide. The information in the guide specific to historic preservation can be found at http://www.wbdg.org/design/historic_pres.php.

Many historic buildings in the Cedar Rapids Bohemian Area were inundated by waters from the 

2008 Midwest floods. These buildings typically had basements. The core elements of these structures performed well due to the favorable material properties and the methods of construction. 

The heavy construction helped basement walls to resist the unbalanced lateral loads from saturated soils. See Section 3.1.1 for more information on behavior and performance of materials. 
3-54 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

These buildings are typically constructed of multiple courses of unreinforced stone masonry and/

or unreinforced clay masonry, and heavy timber framing and dimensional lumber sheathings. See 

Figures 3-79 and 3-80 for typical masonry construction and wood framing details.

Figure 3-79. 

This historic building 

(C.S.P.S. Hall) withstood 

approximately 8 feet of 

water (red line). This 

property, in an A11 flood 

zone, has a BFE of 722 feet, 

and a building elevation 

of approximately 720 feet 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).

Figure 3-80. Cedar Rapids Bohemian Commercial historic district (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).

Cedar River

INUNDATION DATA

NOT AVAILABLE

0 300 600 900 1200 150 Feet

Bohemian Commercial

Historic District

C.S.P.S. Hall

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Areas of Innundation Beyond 

Mapped Flood Zones
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-55

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Care must be taken to use compatible materials when repairing historic structures or damage may 

result. Modern cement mortars have the potential to have different mechanical properties, such 

as elasticity or stiffness, than the original parent material and can lead to damage of the masonry 

elements at the base of the building. 

The foundation for the C.S.P.S. building appears to be in good condition after being dried out for 

several months. The hand-hewn stone cap block is in perfect condition. Effort should be made to 

dry-out and dehumidify the basement after this inundation, to ensure the wood framing returns 

to acceptable moisture content (see Figure 3-81).

Figure 3-81.

Basement and foundation 

of historic building. 

The chisel marks in the 

hand hewn capstone 

(red arrow) are physical 

representations of the 

historic context of the 

building, the stone having 

been sized manually 

versus utilizing machinery 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).

A historic fire station experienced relatively little damage in spite of being inundated by floodwater at a similar height as floodwater that damaged adjacent buildings. This was due to the unusual 

interior materials used in the first floor of this building. The ground floor interior was finished in 

glazed brick, likely as a result of the need to clean and dry the fire equipment during all seasons, 

especially the winter. Thus the brick work served as a water-resistant material for routine maintenance operations, and it resisted the floodwater as well (see Figures 3-82 and 3-83).
3-56 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-82. 

This historic fire station’s 

damage was limited to 

some broken windows and 

a damaged overhead door 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa). 

Figure 3-83. 

The interior ground floor 

of this historic fire station 

was designed with glazed 

brick. This effectively wet 

floodproofed the building 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).

The interior finishes located on the first floors of these flooded historic buildings typically did not 

fare well during the flooding. The flooring, trim, wall coverings, plaster, and drywall finishes were 

damaged by inundation. Replacement materials should be “in-kind” (of the same, or visually compatible, materials), following the guidelines and approaches recommended by the SOI Standards. 

These elements, which will need to be replaced, have been removed to allow the underlying 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-57

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

structural components to dry. Care must also be given to treatment for decay and for wood-destroying organisms. A treatment and monitoring program should be implemented to verify these 

areas are properly de-humidified and no decay occurs. The damaged mechanical and electrical 

systems located on the first floor had to be replaced. Consideration should be given to locating 

the replacement equipment above the first floor, when possible and appropriate, to avoid future 

damage from flooding, as shown in Figures 3-84 and 3-85. 

Figure 3-84. 

This historic building 

had loss of the first floor 

furnishings, mechanical 

systems, electrical 

systems, and finishes 

due to 8 feet of water 

inundation (red line). 

This property, within the 

SFHA, has a BFE of 722 

feet, and an elevation of 

approximately 720 feet. The 

upper floors survived intact 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).

Figure 3-85. 

The interior of the 

restaurant lost all interior 

elements up to about 8 feet 

above the floor (red line) 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).
3-58 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

3.3 Commercial Facilities

The team surveyed commercial facilities ranging from offices and retail shops to a swine food processing plant. All of the commercial facilities discussed in this section are classified as Category 

II structures as defined in ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, cited 

at the beginning of this chapter. Similar to most of the residential properties, commercial facilities were inundated with slow rising inundation. Figure 3-86 illustrates buildings within the SFHA 

in Gays Mills that were flooded by water that exceeded a 1-percent-annual-chance flood. On the 

other hand, Figure 3-87 illustrates a once similar area upstream along the Kickapoo River that was 

converted into open space with the buildings relocated to higher ground.

0 250 500 750 1000 125 Feet

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Floodway

Intersection of S. Gay Street

and Orin Street 

(Residential Area)

300 Block of Main Street

(Commercial Area)

Figure 3-86. The Gays Mills downtown district had over 6 feet of water from the flood (Gays Mills, Wisconsin).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-59

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-87. 

Upstream of Gays Mills 

along the Kickapoo 

River, this open space 

was once downtown 

Soldier’s Grove before 

the community began 

relocating after significant 

flooding in 1978. In 2008, 

the park was inundated 

and repaired; however, 

the damages would 

have been much greater 

had the community not 

relocated (Soldiers Grove, 

Wisconsin).

Three examples highlighted in the following sections illustrate the damage to, and the functional 

losses of, a manufacturing plant, a commercial district, and an office building.

3.3.1 TriOak Foods Processing Plant, Oakville, Iowa

Overview: Oakville, Iowa, is home to the headquarters of TriOak Foods, a grain and pork processing 

company with facilities throughout the state. The Oakville complex includes several slab-on-grade, 

metal frame buildings that house corporate offices, a swine processing plant, and grain storage 

and shipping facilities. TriOak Foods, like much of Oakville, is located behind a levee; when the 

levee was breached, the plant flooded with over 2 feet of water. Most of Oakville remained inundated for three weeks before the floodwater receded.

Summary of Damages: Although TriOak Foods buildings incurred some minor architectural damage, storage equipment bore the brunt of the flood damage:

n Two underground, un-anchored, 10,000-gallon fuel tanks floated up from beneath a 4-inch 

concrete slab as shown in Figure 3-88. The Petroleum Equipment Institute publication 

Recommended Practices for Installation of Underground Liquid Storage Systems (RP100-05), which 

is cited in 40 CFR 280.20 (d) (ii), has recommended procedures for anchorage of these 

type tanks.

n Only pieces of a dry-storage wall remain upright; much of the wall was knocked over as 

shown in Figure 3-89.

n Metal feed silos constructed with bolted connections experienced some seepage resulting 

in damaged feed as shown in Figure 3-90. Welded feed silos did not have seepage issues. 
3-60 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Figure 3-88. 

Water seeping into the 

ground generated enough 

buoyancy to force two 

10,000-gallon underground 

fuel storage tanks through 

a 4-inch concrete slab 

at the TriOak Foods plant 

(Oakville, Iowa).

Figure 3-89. 

A dry-storage wall was 

destroyed at TriOak Foods 

(Oakville, Iowa).

Functional Loss: Swine were evacuated during the flood. Although there was minimal damage to 

buildings, the plant remained closed for the duration of the flood and cleanup process. The 

damage to the fuel tanks could potentially lead to very expensive environmental cleanup efforts. 

Anchoring of any above or underground fuel tanks is recommended as well as placement and anchoring of above ground tanks in secondary retention structures.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-61

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

3.3.2 Urban Commercial Buildings, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 

Overview: Cedar Rapids has had several construction booms since its founding in 1841. As a result, commercial buildings in downtown Cedar Rapids represent a variety of construction types 

and periods. Significant periods of growth and construction occurred during the 1800s, the early 

and mid-1900s, and the 1980s. There are also several buildings constructed in the late 1990s.1

 See 

Figure 3-91 for a picture of downtown Cedar Rapids during the flood.

Summary of Damages: According to residents, the Cedar River inundated 1,300 blocks and 9.2 

square miles of the city on both sides of its banks. Flooding affected the commercial, municipal, 

and industrial districts, among others. Throughout the downtown area, water depths of 7 to 8 feet 

were observed. 

Most buildings experienced significant flooding in their basements and first floors, resulting in severe damage to interior architectural finishes and contents. Few structural failures were observed. 

Cedar Rapids also has several parking structures that include sub-grade levels with basement access from the parking garage to buildings they connect with. Many of these parking structures and 

the basements of attached buildings experienced flooding.

Functional Loss: Approximately two months after the water crested, most commercial buildings had 

not recovered and were not functioning or occupied. Many cultural and public use buildings had 

1 “Open House Presentation Boards.” Cedar Rapids Downtown Area Plan. http://www.cedar-rapids.org/community/documents/

open_house/all%20boards.pdf 15 November 2007

Figure 3-90. 

Bolted silos like the one at 

right at TriOak Foods were 

prone to seepage; as a 

result, some feed was lost. 

Welded silos like the one 

at left did not experience 

seepage (Oakville, Iowa).
3-62 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

3 RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

also suspended operations. The Paramount Theatre, the Cedar Rapids Science Museum, and the 

Cedar Rapids Public Library facilities were all flooded; the library may not resume function in its 

original location for up to three years.2

Figure 3-91. 

The Cedar Rapids 

downtown district had up 

to 8 feet of water at the 

height of the flood (Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa). 

3.3.3 Great American Building, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Overview: The Great American Building, a commercial office building, was built on the riverside 

in 1998 as shown in Figure 3-92. The building has a flood response plan, required by its insurance 

policy that includes plugging floor drains and sandbagging entrances. Although the plan was followed, rapidly rising water overwhelmed response and recovery efforts.

Summary of Damages: The slab-on-grade structure had 7.5 feet of water on the first floor, which resulted in an estimated $2 million in damages to interior finishes and utilities, including electrical 

equipment and wiring, fire pumps, and the emergency generator. The only damage to upper level 

offices was due to one office’s equipment malfunctioning when power was shut off—that damage 

was minimal. This office building plans to restore all damaged equipment to its pre-flood location.

Functional Loss: Water entered only the first floor; however, offices on upper levels were unable to 

resume operations for several weeks until after the electrical components on the first floor were 

repaired.

2 Cedar Rapids Public Library web site. http://www.crlibrary.org/flood/index.html
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 3-63

RESIDENTIAL, HISTORIC, AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 3

Figure 3-92. 

The Great American 

Building sits along the 

Cedar River. Although it 

had a flood response plan 

in place, it experienced 

significant flooding on its 

ground floor. This property, 

in an A11 flood zone, has 

a BFE of 724 feet, and an 

elevation of approximately 

720 feet (Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa).

MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-1

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Critical and Essential 

Facilities

Chapter 4 discusses damages observed by the MAT to critical and 

essential facilities throughout southern and central Iowa and 

Wisconsin. Most flood damages were the result of riverine flooding 

and sewer backups. Most site visits were conducted in August and 

September of 2008; the University of Iowa was visited in October of 

2008. In addition to notes taken in the field, the MAT made use of 

photographs and documentation supplied by the FEMA Joint Field 

Offices in Des Moines, Iowa, and Madison, Wisconsin. 

4

Julia Moline

George McKinnon

Mark Elliott

Dave Low

Jacquelyn Nicholson

Daniel Zell
4-2 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Building damages assessed by the MAT were categorized according to Table 3-1. Building occupancies are classified into four categories. Chapter 4 discusses Categories III and IV, which are 

defined as follows:

n Category III (Critical Facilities), buildings and other structures that represent a substantial 

hazard to human life in the event of failure. This category includes water and wastewater 

treatment facilities, municipal buildings, educational facilities, and non-emergency 

healthcare facilities.

n Category IV, buildings and other structures designated as essential facilities. This category 

includes hospitals and fire, rescue, ambulance, and police stations.

Facilities reviewed during the MAT included:

n Critical Facilities (Category III) 

n Municipal Facilities

n Detention Facilities (special evacuation issues are also discussed)

n Water Treatment Facilities and Wastewater Treatment Facilities

n Utility Plants

n Educational Facilities

o K–12 School Buildings

o School Administration and Maintenance Buildings

o University Buildings

n Essential Facilities (Category IV)

n Medical

n Police and Fire Stations

Section 4.1 discusses critical facilities including municipal facilities and detention facilities. 

Section 4.2 discusses essential facilities, including medical facilities and law enforcement facilities. 

Section 4.3 discusses water and wastewater treatment facilities, and Section 4.4 discusses educational facilities.

Section 4.5 includes a matrix of lessons learned at the facilities visited by the MAT. The matrix 

categorizes the lessons learned by building type and guidance in existing FEMA publications, 

including:

n FEMA 348, Protecting Building Utilities from Flood Damage, a technical handbook for elevating 

and otherwise protecting electrical, mechanical, gas, water, and other major building 

utilities

n FEMA 543, Design Guide for Improving Critical Facility Safety from Flooding and High Winds, 

a technical manual that provides a comprehensive survey of the methods and processes 

necessary to protect critical facilities from natural hazards

n FEMA 577, Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety from Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds, 

a technical manual that provides a multi-hazard approach to protecting hospitals
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-3

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

n NFIP Technical Bulletin 2 (TB 2), Flood Damage-Resistant Materials Requirements, an overview 

and technical guide to selecting and installing flood damage-resistant structural and finish 

materials

n NFIP Technical Bulletin 4 (TB 4), Elevator Installation, regulations and guidelines for 

installing and protecting elevators in flood-prone areas

n NFIP Technical Bulletin 6 (TB 6), Below-Grade Parking Requirements, technical guidelines for 

designing and constructing below-grade parking garages for non-residential buildings in 

SFHAs

n Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management Into the 21st Century (Galloway Report), a study 

and review of the 1993 Midwest floods

It is anticipated that the facilities reviewed by the MAT will utilize federal funding to recover and 

rebuild after the 2008 floods. When federal funding is provided for the repair of existing critical 

facilities located within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, the repairs are subject to the requirements of FEMA 543, ASCE 7, and ASCE 24. 

Federal agencies with involvement in funding, permitting, and constructing critical facilities are 

also required to adhere to the requirements of Executive Order (EO) 11988. Under EO 11988 – 

Floodplain Management, federal agencies are to provide leadership and take action to reduce the 

risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and protect 

the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains. 

Under EO 11988 implementing guidelines, a critical action, which includes critical facilities, is defined to include any activity for which even a slight chance of flooding is too great. The concept 

of critical action reflects a concern that the impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare for many activities could not be minimized unless a higher degree of protection than the base 

flood (the 1-percent-annual-chance flood) was provided. For facilities in Zone A, ASCE 24 recommends incorporating a minimum of a 1-foot freeboard for critical facilities and a 2-foot freeboard 

for essential facilities.

Only one of the critical facilities visited by the MAT had been constructed to a 0.2-percent-annualchance flood event level of protection; detailed pre-event emergency planning for the remaining 

critical facilities is an urgent need. FEMA 543 provides further elevation guidance for critical 

facilities and recommends that the lowest floors of critical facilities be elevated to or above the 

0.2-percent-annual-chance flood elevation. The MAT recommends locating critical and essential 

facilities outside the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain. If that is not possible, critical and essential facilities should be elevated (or otherwise protected) to the 0.2-percent-annual-chance 

flood elevation or the ASCE 24 minimum elevation requirements, whichever is greater. 

The locations of several Cedar Rapids, Iowa, facilities referenced in this chapter are shown in 

Figure 4-1.
4-4 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Figure 4-1. 

Flood zones and inundation for Cedar Rapids City Hall, Linn County Courthouse, Linn County Detention Center, 

Cedar Rapids Police Department Headquarters, Linn County Sheriff’s Office, and Education Services Center Annex 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa)

4.1 Critical Facilities: Local Government

This section discusses building performance of public institutional facilities classified under 

Category III as defined by ASCE 7-05. The three buildings discussed in this section are Cedar 

Rapids City Hall, the Linn County Courthouse, and the Linn County Detention Center; all three 

facilities are in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and are essential for continued government operations and 

community security. Table 4-1 summarizes elevation information for these and other facilities.

Cedar River

0 250 500 750 1000 125 Feet

Police Department

Headquarters

C

Linn County

Detention Center

Linn County Courthouse

City Hall

Linn County

Sheriff’s Office

Education

Services

Center Annex

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Areas of Inundation Beyond 

Mapped Flood Zones
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-5

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Table 4-1. Elevation Data for Cedar Rapids Critical Facilities

Facility

Floodplain

First Floor 

Elevation 

(Basement)

Lowest 

Adjacent 

Grade

Flood 

Elevation 

(Approx.)

Base Flood 

Elevation

0.2-PercentAnnual-Chance 

Flood Elevation

Recurrence 

Interval Date

City Hall SFHA 714.2 Not 

available 734 724.7 728.5 >500-year Pre-FIRM

Linn County 

Courthouse SFHA Not 

available 726.8 734 724 728 >500-year Pre-FIRM

Linn County 

Detention 

Center 

SFHA Not 

available 726.4 734 724 728 >500-year Post-FIRM

Police 

Department 

Headquarters

0.2-PercentAnnualChance

724.5 724 731 723.5 729 >500-year Post-FIRM

4.1.1 Cedar Rapids City Hall and Linn County Courthouse, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Key Issues: Floodwaters entered the Cedar Rapids City Hall and the Linn County Courthouse, two 

municipal buildings located on an island in the Cedar River, through tunnels and an underground 

parking garage. As a result, both buildings lost critical contents and functions in their lower levels.

Overview: Cedar Rapids City Hall (Figure 4-2) and the Linn County Courthouse (Figure 4-3) were 

built in 1927. (The Linn County Detention Center, which is also shown in Figure 4-3, is discussed 

below.) The buildings are situated on Mays Island in the Cedar River and are in the SFHA (see 

Figure 4-1). They are both connected to an underground parking structure via underground access tunnels. Figures 4-4 and 4-5 show these areas. As water entered the adjacent parking garage 

and access tunnels, the buildings experienced significant flooding in their basements. In addition 

to completely inundated basements, both buildings had about 2 feet of water on their first floors.

Figure 4-2. Mays Island, 

including City Hall, flooded 

as the Cedar River rose 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).
4-6 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Figure 4-3. 

The Linn County 

Courthouse and Detention 

Center on Mays Island were 

inundated (Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa).

Figure 4-4. 

The Mays Island 

underground parking 

structure connects to 

City Hall and the County 

Courthouse and was a 

major source of floodwater 

intrusion into both buildings 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).

Linn County Courthouse Linn County 

Detention Center
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-7

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Figure 4-5. 

The tunnel and stairs into City Hall from the 

underground parking structure were a source of 

flooding in the basement (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).

Summary of Damages: Both the City Hall and Courthouse lost all interior architectural finishes in 

their basements as well as significant interior finishes on ground floor levels. In both cases, cleanup was complicated and prolonged by the presence of asbestos building materials, which had to 

be remediated prior to the rehabilitation of the buildings. Both buildings lost their electrical and 

mechanical distribution systems including the main electrical service equipment, communications equipment, and life safety equipment (Figure 4-6). 

In addition, many public records kept in the basement of City Hall were lost. Several files were 

moved from the basement of the Courthouse to the first floor prior to the flood; however, the first 

floor was also inundated and those files were lost. Exhibits and artifacts in the Spanish-American 

War Museum, also on the first floor of City Hall, were damaged as well.

Functional Loss: City Hall was unusable for over eight months after the floods. After the initial 

cleanup was complete, ongoing environmental concerns over asbestos and mold growth hindered 

reconstruction and recovery. As a result, operations in meeting rooms, office space, and historic 

exhibits were relocated or temporarily suspended. 

The Courthouse lost all basement functions, including juvenile, arraignment, small claims, and 

domestic courts. Because of mold intrusion and other issues, the Courthouse building was not 

functional for several months after the storm.
4-8 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

4.1.2 Linn County Detention Center, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Key Issues: The Linn County Detention center experienced significant flooding of the basement 

level and 2 feet of flooding on the ground floor. Flooding in the basement was primarily due to 

flooding in underground access tunnels that connect it to the underground parking garage on 

Mays Island. Significant damages were sustained by the electrical, mechanical, and elevator equipment on the basement level and by inmate-detention system electronics and equipment on the 

ground floor. A last-minute evacuation of inmates occurred after the jail lost power. 

Overview: The Linn County Detention Center was built in 1984 and is a cast-in-place and pre-cast 

concrete, six-story building located on Mays Island in the Cedar River (Figure 4-7). The building 

is connected to the Linn County Courthouse via an underground access tunnel (Figure 4-8). The 

jail has an operating capacity of 450 inmates; at the time of the flood, there were between 350 and 

400 inmates in custody. The building experienced significant flooding of the basement level and 

2 feet of flooding on the ground floor. As the water entered the building, an emergency evacuation was ordered. 

Summary of Damages: The Detention Center lost its electrical and mechanical systems, as well as 

architectural floor and wall finishes, on the basement and ground levels. The elevators needed significant repairs, and mold intrusion as a result of the flooding and subsequent lack of temperature 

and ventilation control was an ongoing concern during recovery efforts.

Functional Loss: As river water rose over Mays Island, water began entering the jail through the access 

tunnel to the Courthouse. The Sheriff’s Department made a decision to evacuate all inmates to other facilities, which proved to be a challenging effort under emergency conditions. Inmates boarded 

buses and were driven across bridges over the Cedar River. By the time of the evacuation, water levels 

were so high over the bridges that the buses were knocked against guardrails as they crossed the river.

Figure 4-6. 

City Hall and the 

Courthouse lost their 

electrical systems. Cleanup 

and replacement were 

prolonged because of 

asbestos abatement 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-9

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

In less than 3 hours, Sheriff’s Deputies had evacuated male and female county inmates as well as 

several federal inmates to nearby facilities. All inmates were moved to other facilities, and operations at the Detention Center were temporarily suspended.

Figure 4-8. 

Access tunnel to the Courthouse 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa)

Figure 4-7. 

The Linn County Detention 

Center is on Mays Island 

in the Cedar River (Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa).
4-10 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

The Detention Center was not operational for several months after the storm. Cleanup and mitigation efforts were phased to allow for full occupation of the facility by April of 2009. Flood 

mitigation measures were planned for later phases. This included:

n Moving the control room from the first floor to the fifth

n Relocating electrical switchgear and air handlers from the basement to higher levels

n Relocating the emergency generator from the basement to a higher level

4.2 Essential Facilities

This section discusses the building performance of essential facilities throughout southern and 

central Iowa and Wisconsin. All of the facilities discussed in this section are classified under 

Category IV as defined by ASCE 7.

4.2.1 Mercy Medical Center, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Key Issues: Mercy Medical Center is near but not directly in the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain (Figure 4-9). During the 2008 flood, the hospital sustained significant damage to contents 

and functions due to sewer backup and groundwater. 

Figure 4-9. Flood zones and inundation for Mercy Medical Center (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)

0 250 500 750 1000 125 Feet

Mercy Medical Center

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Areas of Inundation Beyond 

Mapped Flood Zones
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-11

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Overview: Mercy Medical Center is one of two major medical facilities in Cedar Rapids. Located at 

the edge of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, the hospital consists of a series of structures, 

several of which are connected by a continuous basement. The three main structures in the complex were built in 1923, 1947, and 1969 (Figure 4-10). 

Figure 4-10. 

Mercy Medical Center, 

which sits just outside 

the 0.2-percent-annualchance floodplain, was 

surrounded by 3 feet of 

water (Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa).

Although flooding was higher than originally expected, higher river crest predictions were available 

to Mercy approximately 24 hours in advance. As a result, the staff were able to evacuate patients to 

other facilities. Flooding came from several sources, although the primary flooding sources were 

sanitary sewer backup through toilets and sinks, and groundwater seepage. There were also reports 

that water flowed from the flooded parking garage, across a courtyard, and into the basement. 

Mercy staff and volunteers were able to keep the water largely at bay by sandbagging, pumping, 

and drilling holes in the basement slab to relieve hydrostatic pressure below the slab. Water levels outside the building reached depths of 3 feet, while remediation efforts limited interior water 

levels to only 2 or 3 inches (Figure 4-11). There was significant damage to some equipment and 

interior finishes, although other major equipment and contents losses were avoided. 

Summary of Damages: The most significant damage was to the Nursing Building, which was built in 

1947. This building lost offices, clinics, elevators, and service areas. 

Flooding in the basement of the Nursing Building led to irreparable damage to medical equipment including a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machine, two Computed Tomography 

(CT) computers, and pharmaceutical robotics. In addition, the communications systems, UPS 

systems, electrical distribution panels, mechanical controls, elevators, security systems, and radio 

center suffered severe damages (Figure 4-12).
4-12 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Figure 4-12. 

Electrical equipment in the 

basement of Mercy Medical 

Center, which was exposed 

to a few inches of water 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa)

Figure 4-11. 

Water rose to the level of the window bar outside 

of Mercy. Massive volunteer efforts helped to keep 

water levels to a few inches inside 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-13

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

There was also significant damage to the interior finishes of the basement and ground floor levels. The emergency area, which had been remodeled one month prior to the flood, lost all of its 

drywall and flooring. In addition, many basement ceiling panels were saturated and fell during 

the flood.

Functional Loss: The hospital ceased most functions during the flood, evacuating all of its patients. 

In addition to the loss of medical and other equipment, and the possible total replacement of the 

Nursing Building, the loss of function resulted in a loss of revenue for the hospital. However, select 

parts of the hospital remained operational throughout the flood, including the radiation center. 

Mercy Medical Center was operating at 90 percent of its full function two months after the flood.

4.2.2 Law Enforcement Facilities and Fire Departments

The MAT visited law enforcement facilities in Iowa and Wisconsin. This section discusses the Linn 

County Sheriff’s Department and Cedar Rapids Police Department Headquarters, both in Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa, as well as the Fire Station in La Valle, Wisconsin.

4.2.2.1 Linn County Sheriff’s Department, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Key Issues: The Linn County Sheriff’s Department kept an emergency generator at ground level 

in an outdoor enclosure, which was flooded; the generator was completely submerged and could 

not be used when the facility lost power. The Sheriff’s Department lost critical contents that were 

stored in the basement and ground floor levels.

Overview:  The Linn County Sheriff’s Department (Figure 4-13) was built in 1921. In 2001, a 

slab-on-grade garage was added onto the original structure. The building is located in the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain (Figure 4-1). The basement and first floor of the original section 

were flooded to their full heights, and the second floor was flooded to 2 feet. 

Figure 4-13. Linn County 

Sheriff’s Department 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa)
4-14 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Summary of Damages: Several overhead garage doors were damaged. In addition, the emergency 

generator, which was kept in an outdoor enclosure, was completely submerged (Figure 4-14). 

The Sheriff’s Department also lost significant equipment, including the electrical and mechanical distribution systems, and communications and data systems. There was also damage to interior 

architectural finishes.

Figure 4-14. 

The emergency generator was kept in an outdoor 

enclosure and was completely submerged. The 

water reached the floodlight near the second floor 

window (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).

Functional Loss: The Sheriff’s Department building lost all functions during flooding, and operations were temporarily relocated to other facilities.

4.2.2.2 City of Cedar Rapids Police Department Headquarters, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Key Issues: The Cedar Rapids Police Department (CRPD) Headquarters was built 1 foot above the 

BFE and 4.5 feet below the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood elevation. The facility was flooded 

with 7 feet of water and sustained damage to critical equipment, functions, and contents, including files, evidence, and firearms.

Overview:  The CRPD built its headquarters in 1997. The structure is located outside of the SFHA, 

but in the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain (Figure 4-1). During the June 2008 floods, the 

walkout basement was inundated with 7 feet of river and sewer water (Figure 4-15). Floodwater 

entered primarily through a loading dock area. Although officers used several remediation tactics, 

including constructing a temporary dike, sandbagging, and pumping, their efforts did not prevent 

losses (Figures 4-16 and 4-17).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-15

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Figure 4-15. 

The CRPD Headquarters 

had 7 feet of water in its 

ground floor. The stairs 

shown here lead up to the 

first floor (Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa).

Figure 4-16. Much of the 

water that entered the 

CRPD building came in 

through the loading dock 

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa).
4-16 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Summary of Damages: There was significant damage to the lower level of the building, including 

the overhead garage doors in the loading dock area, an emergency generator, electrical and mechanical distribution systems, elevators, and communications and data systems. Officers noted that 

several firearms that might otherwise have been salvaged were corroded beyond repair.

Functional Loss: While components such as computers, generators, and electrical equipment within 

the police department building were re-located after the flood, many of these components were operational within a few weeks of the event. However, all basement functions, including the crime lab, 

fitness and weight rooms, locker rooms, the Quartermaster (uniform distribution), and the armory 

were destroyed and required replacement. In addition, many files, evidence, equipment, and other 

contents that were stored in the basement were damaged beyond repair or restoration (Figure 4-18).

Figure 4-18. 

Contents stored in the 

basement, including 

weapons and ammunition, 

were damaged (Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa).

Figure 4-17. 

A temporary dike was built 

along the back of the CRPD 

building (Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-17

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

4.2.2.3 La Valle Fire Station, La Valle, Wisconsin

Key Issues: Prior to the flood, staff at the La Valle Fire Station moved contents and equipment 

from the ground level of the one-story facility to a mezzanine level, and therefore, very little damage was sustained.

Overview: The La Valle Fire Station, which houses the volunteer fire department, consists of two 

engine bays, equipment storage, offices, and a meeting room (Figure 4-19). The building is outside of the SFHA, but is close to the Baraboo River (Figure 4-20). The building came close to 

flooding in August 2007; in June 2008, the building had 22 inches of water due to river water 

and street run-off. The building did not lose power and, thanks to volunteer efforts, much of the 

building’s contents and equipment were moved to the mezzanine floor and avoided damage. The 

mechanical equipment was also on the mezzanine level. 

Figure 4-19. 

La Valle Fire Department 

(La Valle, Wisconsin)

Summary of Damages: There was some damage to interior wall finishes, and the drywall in the office and meeting areas was torn out and replaced to 4 feet above the floor. The gas meter was also 

damaged.

Functional Loss: The fire station did not lose power, although there was a temporary disruption of 

operations.
4-18 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

4.3 Utility Plants and Wastewater Treatment and Water Distribution 

Facilities

The MAT evaluated multiple wastewater treatment facilities and one water distribution pump station in Iowa and Wisconsin. Wastewater facilities are typically located in low-lying areas adjacent to 

water bodies to utilize as much gravity flow into the facility as possible and for accessible effluent 

discharge capabilities. This poses many risks to the community when these facilities experience 

flooding from surface water and excessive inflow. In addition to the possible loss of expensive 

equipment and facilities, the risks extend to the health and safety of downstream and upstream 

communities, drinking water systems, sewer backups within the system, discharge violations and 

associated fines, and loss of daily operational functions for the area the plant serves. 

4.3.1 Wastewater Treatment Facility, Reedsburg, Wisconsin

Key Issues: The earthen berm protecting the Reedsburg Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) 

was overtopped during the 2008 floods, causing the plant to cease operations. As a result of the 

shut-down, untreated sewer water was discharged into the Baraboo River. In addition, the access 

road to the facility was flooded and became impassable.

Figure 4-20. Floodway and flood zones for the La Valle Fire Department (La Valle, Wisconsin)

0 250 500 750 1000 125 Feet

La Valle

Mill Pond

La Valle Fire Department

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Floodway

Baraboo RIver
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-19

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Overview: The Reedsburg WWTF, which was constructed in 1939, is in the SFHA (Figure 4-21). 

The facility is currently designed with a 2.6-million-gallons-per-day (MGD) capacity to serve approximately 10,000 people. Over the past decades, several additions and upgrades have increased 

its overall capacity and efficiency. The most notable renovation was the reconstruction and systems 

replacement completed in 2006, which upgraded most of the systems except for the modernized 

sludge handling equipment.

Figure 4-21. Floodway and SFHA for Reedsburg WWTF (Reedsburg, Wisconsin)

The Reedsburg WWTF layout includes one main interceptor pipe entering the plant and capturing flows from the west side of town. The system discharges by gravity through eight lift stations. 

The WWTF has a berm (elevation 879.0 feet) surrounding the facility and elevated to 1 foot above 

the BFE of 878.0 feet (Figure 4-22). The 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood elevation at the facility is 

approximately 881 feet. The facility’s first floor elevation is at 874.6 feet with utilities and the majority of the electrical and instrumentation equipment at this level. Final clarifiers were elevated 

1to 2 feet above the first floor elevation. 

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Floodway
4-20 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Figure 4-22. 

Reedsburg WWTF flooded 

on June 9, 2008. The red 

line follows the berm 

(Reedsburg, Wisconsin).

Summary of Damages: The Reedsburg WWTF was inundated with nearly 4.5 feet of water on June 

9, 2008. During the flooding, the berm held, but was overtopped by the adjacent Baraboo River. 

Wet wells overflowed. Effluent from the surcharged sewer system started flooding the WWTF. 

Groundwater “boiled up” from the paved surfaces of the parking and facility areas. The access 

roads to the WWTF were inundated, and the facility was accessible only by boat (see Figure 4-23).

Figure 4-23. 

Reedsburg WWTF access 

road flooded (Reedsburg, 

Wisconsin).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-21

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Damages to the Reedsburg WWTF were estimated to be approximately $2 million. During the 

peak of the flooding, the facility ceased operations, the power was shut-off, and personnel abandoned the site for safety. The following summarizes the damages incurred by the facility:

n Electrical transformer and main breaker flooded.

n Entire lab, including all furniture and equipment were lost.

n Office drywall, casework, doors, and flooring were destroyed.

n Underground electrical wiring was damaged (some electrical equipment was cleaned and 

refurbished).

n Some computers were lost.

n Some vehicles were lost.

n Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) could not be salvaged and needed to be replaced.

n Future mitigation plans include raising the berm surrounding the facility nearly 5 feet 

higher than its current elevation and acquiring additional emergency pumps. 

Figure 4-24. 

Reedsburg WWTF offices 

and processing facilities 

flooded (Reedsburg, 

Wisconsin).

Functional Loss: Operators stayed at the facility as long as safely possible until shutting off the electrical power and abandoning the facility. All three Motor Control Centers were submerged but 

were salvaged after being dried out and cleaned. The facility was shut down and abandoned when 

water levels rose to an elevation of 883.5 feet. At that point, inflow readings had reached 11 MGD, 

nearly five times more than the facility’s design capacity. 

After the rain stopped and the river started to recede, it took two full days to remove floodwaters 

from the plant using six pumps ranging from 6 to 10 inches. The contaminated floodwaters were 

pumped directly into the Baraboo River. The facility was cleaned, temporarily repaired, and operating on permanent power by June 25. While the facility was able to function at its pre-flood 

capacity immediately, higher than normal levels of phosphorus—a nutrient that can lead to excessive plant growth and decay—were reported in the first two weeks of operation.
4-22 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

4.3.2 Sewer Pump Station, Reedsburg, Wisconsin

Key Issues: When power at the Reedsburg Sewer Pump Station was lost, the emergency generator could not be run because natural gas had been shut off by the city as part of its emergency 

procedures. As a result, the Sewer Pump Station failed, and the incoming raw sewage at the station could not be pumped from the drainage area. The pump station’s wet well and portions 

of the sewer collection system backed up and became surcharged. This event resulted in sewer 

backups in homes, commercial buildings, and public facilities.

Overview: The Sewer Pump Station (Figure 4-25) on Grand Avenue, which is two years old, is located in the SFHA, approximately 2 feet above the BFE. The surrounding area was inundated 

and access to the pump station was limited, but floodwater did not enter the building (Figure 

4-26). However, the natural gas supply was shut down to this part of the city, and, when the station lost power, a natural gas powered emergency generator could not be used. The failure of 

this lift station resulted in the inability to convey raw sewage flows from this part of Reedsburg, 

causing the sewer inflows to back up, affecting numerous homes, commercial facilities, and public buildings.

0 250 500 750 1000 125 Feet

Reedsburg Sewer Pump Station

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Floodway

Figure 4-25. Floodway and SFHA for Reedsburg Sewer Pump Station (Reedsburg, Wisconsin)
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-23

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Figure 4-26. 

Reedsburg Sewer Pump Station flooded (Reedsburg, 

Wisconsin)

4.3.3 Wastewater Treatment Facility, Baraboo, Wisconsin

Key Issues: The Baraboo WWTF was able to maintain operations throughout the 2008 flood events 

thanks to elevated equipment, watertight manhole covers, and pre-flood preparations. However, 

the access road to the main plant was flooded and impassable. Due to the flooding on the access 

road, it was not possible to transport a generator to a pump station that had lost power.

Overview: The Baraboo WWTF treats wastewater from the Village of West Baraboo, Devil’s Lake 

State Park, and the Baraboo Sanitary District, in addition to the city. The WWTF structures were 

built 2 feet above the BFE, which is approximately 819 feet. The 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood 

elevation is approximately 821 feet. In 2004, the city began a 3-year project to upgrade the facility 

based on projected needs over the next 20 years. Some portions of the existing facility date back 

to 1933. The system includes two lift stations: one that serves nine residential homes and a second 

that serves nearly 300 homes. The rest of the system flows to the facility by gravity. There are also 

three siphons carrying flow under the river to the facility. 

The Baraboo WWTF had adequate warning and had made previous preparations for flooding. 

Manholes in Baraboo were inspected and replaced regularly to ensure they were watertight as part 

of a “clean sewers” program. During the 2008 floods, manholes were submerged for nearly three 

to four days and performed well. Operators also had an adequate supply of sand bags and adequate time to install them because the river rose slowly (Figure 4-28).
4-24 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Figure 4-27. Floodway and SFHA for Baraboo WWTF (Baraboo, Wisconsin)

0 250 500 750 1000 125 Feet

Baraboo Wastewater 

Treatment Facility

113

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Floodway

Figure 4-28. 

Sandbagging protecting the 

office building (Baraboo, 

Wisconsin)
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-25

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Summary of Damages: During the June 2008 storms, the facility retained 1.5 feet of standing ground 

and surface water. The facility was capable of handling the excess inflows; however, operators were 

unable to keep river flow from entering the site. The major equipment was not damaged, except 

for level sensors (Figure 4-29).

Figure 4-29. 

Some electrical equipment 

elevated on concrete pads 

and on wall (Baraboo, 

Wisconsin)

Functional Loss: The Baraboo WWTF remained operational despite inflow levels of 4 to 5 times 

higher than normal levels (1,500-1,800 gallons per minute). All pumps and electrical equipment 

for wet wells were elevated above the BFE, although mechanical equipment for the wet wells was 

below the BFE. One local lift station was out of service for 5 hours when its electrical equipment 

shorted out; operators were able to obtain a used starter from a local electrician to keep the facility operational.

Remediation efforts at the WWTF were complicated because floodwater impeded access to the 

facility (Figure 4-30). The facility’s current plans for mitigation include raising the access road.
4-26 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Figure 4-30. 

Flooded access road at the 

Baraboo WWTF (Baraboo, 

Wisconsin).

4.3.4 Wastewater Treatment Facility, Jefferson, Wisconsin

Key Issues: A continuous berm around the Jefferson WWTF was not compromised despite uneven 

levels of protection. By controlling influent, the facility was able to continue operation throughout the floods. 

Overview: The Jefferson WWTF is located in the SFHA (Figure 4-31) and has an operating capacity of 2.5 MGD. The WWTF has two main interceptors: one from the north under the river that is 

controlled by a sluice gate and another from the west. Flows from the west travel beneath the river 

through a 12-inch and 8-inch double siphon. There are five lift stations in Jefferson—four small 

stations and one large station that are located outside of the flood-impacted areas. 

The WWTF is below the BFE and is protected by a berm. The berm is intended to be 2 feet above 

the BFE; however, an access road cuts through the berm, disrupting the continuity of protection. 

During the flood, a citywide bulletin was issued to encourage the reduction of water use and sewage flows. Inflow to the plant was also substantially reduced when the city worked with Tyson Foods 

and Nestle Pet Foods to cut inflow from these facilities. Two emergency crews were set up on each 

side of the river since both bridges were impassable preventing access to the WWTF site from 

portions of the city. The WWTF operators had an effluent pump platform built to allow for an 

emergency diesel pump (Figure 4-32). They also had installed an emergency generator to power 

the entire facility, and when power was lost to the WWTF, operators were able to switch to generator power. However, the generator was installed several feet below the BFE. Although the WWTF’s 

berm kept water out of the site and, therefore, kept the generator dry, the generator could have 

been lost had the berm been overtopped.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-27

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Figure 4-31. Floodway and floodplains for Jefferson WWTF (Jefferson, Wisconsin) 

Figure 4-32. 

Discharge pump platform 

with space and hook 

ups for emergency 

diesel pump (Jefferson, 

Wisconsin)

26

0 500 1000 1500 2000 250 Feet

Jefferson Wastewater

Treatment Facility

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Floodway
4-28 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Summary of Damages: The WWTF remained in operation during the peak wet weather event because influent flows were controlled. Approximately half of the influent flows (raw sewage) were 

routed around the WWTF and sent directly to the river with temporary pumping units. Because of 

the high peak wet weather flow rates, the biological components were washed out of the treatment 

system, resulting in higher ammonia levels several days after the flood. During and after the flood, 

nutrient effluent levels were not exceeded, and the plant operators met their discharge permit requirements, largely because the effluent was diluted with storm water.

The influent pump station temporarily lost one of its pumping units when its VFD was struck by 

lightning. The plant operators were able to run the pumping unit without the VFD and maintain 

operations. The VFD was replaced within about a month.

Functional Loss: Officials were able to curb inflows to the facility by issuing a citywide bulletin to reduce water use, close influent sluice gates, and take two major industrial users offline. One major 

user was able to truck their sewage for two days to keep operations going. Plant operators made 

the decision to have a portion of the influent bypass the facility and discharge directly into the river with temporary pumping units. The bypassed flow concentrations were diluted and, therefore, 

no discharge permit violations were reported.

The city’s fuel station quickly flooded (Figure 4-33) and fuel supply for WWTF equipment became 

a primary concern to keep the facility operating. Operators were able to obtain fuel from a local 

gas station and have more fuel delivered to the facility on regular intervals throughout the remainder of the storm event. 

Figure 4-33. 

The Jefferson WWTF is 

protected by a berm, 

outlined in red. The fuel 

station, shown by the 

arrow, is not protected and 

was flooded (Jefferson, 

Wisconsin).

At the peak of the flood event, the facility experienced 7.5 MGD, nearly three times the typical 

inflow rates, due to the high inflow into the sewer system caused by floodwater surcharging the 

sewer collection system through manholes, flooded homes and basements allowing inflows into 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-29

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

the sewer system, and groundwater infiltration due to the saturated conditions. The river stage 

rose above the outlet discharge pump, and the operators quickly installed stop planks to keep flow 

out. An emergency diesel pump and both discharge effluent pumps were run continuously.

The Jefferson WWTF plans to create an emergency action plan and contact list to expedite repairs, 

such as finding additional portable pumps, contractors, and suppliers. Future plans under consideration may include re-designing the pumping units and the discharge piping elevation to the 

river to ensure that during high river water levels, the plant effluent can be adequately discharged 

into the river.

4.3.5 Utility Plant, Cedar Falls, Iowa

Key Issues: Two floodwalls protect the Cedar Falls Utility Plant, and large openings in the floodwalls are sealed with a combination of floodgates and water-filled bladders prior to a flood event, 

such that the floodwalls are continuous and protect to the 0.2-percent-annual-chance level. The 

redundant systems could have protected the facility well; however, actual flood levels were approximately 2 feet higher than expected, and the floodwall assemblies were overtopped.

Overview: The Cedar Falls Utility Plant has a complex of several plants on varied terrains and staff 

has taken measures to mitigate both flood and wind hazards. The complex is in the SFHA (Figure 

4-34) and equipment is elevated to maintain operability during floods.

Figure 4-34. SFHA for Cedar Falls Utility Plant (Cedar Falls, Iowa)

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood
4-30 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

The coal fired electric generation station was inundated during the flood. The station has two 

floodwalls in place: one around the entire site, and the other around the power plant building. 

The perimeter floodwall is not continuous; during normal operations, breaks in the floodwall allow for access to the plant and staging areas for trucks. When a flood threat is perceived, the plant 

staff deploys bladders to fill the gaps and build the wall to a continuous height. The bladders are 

an engineered system that can be stored on site (Figure 4-35) and positioned and filled with water in one to two days. Bladders are easy to fill and repair. In conjunction with the floodwall, they 

could have been an effective means of protecting the plant; however, the floodwater crest was 

higher than expected and overtopped the floodwall assembly.

Figure 4-35. 

Inflatable bladders are 

stored on site and deployed 

when a flood threat is 

perceived. The Cedar Falls 

Utility Plant maintained 

hourly monitoring of 

the latest flood levels to 

determine deployment of 

barrier systems (Cedar 

Falls, Iowa).

In the days leading up to the 2008 floods, plant staff had been tracking reports and anticipated 

river crests. Water-filled bladder systems were prepared and assembled to protect against the anticipated flood levels. However, just before the floods began, river crest predictions rose by 3 feet. 

Though they had the capability to raise the protection level, plant staff did not have enough time 

to fill additional bladders and construct the additional bracing necessary to hold them in place. 

Actual flood levels were 1 to 2 feet above the floodwalls, and, as a result, the facility was inundated 

(Figure 4-36).

Future mitigation plans for the Cedar Falls utility plant call for protection to the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood elevation plus 3 feet.

Summary of Damages: Damage to the utility plant was approximately $5 million, and additional 

damage to the utility complex was approximately $2.5 million. Most of the equipment inside the 

plant, including feed pumps and coal mills, was damaged. Plant staff estimated that total repairs 

would cost approximately $15 million.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-31

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Figure 4-36. 

The water level at the 

Cedar Falls power plant 

was approximately 2 feet 

higher than the anticipated 

flood levels and 

overtopped the floodwalls 

(Cedar Falls, Iowa).

Functional Loss: Staff estimated that the plant would be down for five months, amounting to approximately $26,000 per day in lost function. However, lost service to customers was minimal 

due to the existence of other plants on higher terrain that the Cedar Falls Utility Plant owns and 

operates.

4.4 Educational Facilities

The MAT visited numerous educational facilities in both Iowa and Wisconsin, including elementary schools, school administration facilities, and university campuses. Local officials should consult 

FEMA 424, Design Guide for Improving School Safety, for guidance and recommendations on protecting educational facilities against floods and other hazards.

4.4.1 Education Services Center and Annex, Cedar Rapids Community School District, 

Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Key Issues: The basement of the Education Services Center (ESC) Annex, where school system 

files and an emergency generator were stored, was flooded. As a result, the facility could not set up 

emergency power, and the school record-keeping systems were destroyed. 

Overview: The Cedar Rapids Community School District includes 31 schools, of which only two 

were damaged in the floods:

n Harrison Elementary School, which reopened for the 2008 fall sessions, experienced both 

riverine and sewer backup flooding, but major sandbagging and pumping efforts helped 

to reduce damages.

n Taylor Elementary School experienced mostly riverine flooding. The slab-on-grade school 

did not reopen for the beginning of the 2008–2009 academic year.
4-32 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Four administrative buildings were also damaged in the floods. Two of them, the ESC and 

Annex buildings, are both masonry buildings located in the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain (see Figure 4-1). Both buildings had 8 to 9 feet of flooding on the ground floor. The ESC 

basement was filled with water for nearly seven days (Figure 4-37). The ESC Annex building is 

slab-on-grade.

Figure 4-37. 

The ESC had about 8 feet 

of water on its ground floor, 

in addition to a flooded 

basement (Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa).

Summary of Damages: The ESC basement housed the building’s emergency generator, which was 

completely submerged. The generator ran on natural gas, which was shut off by the local utility 

provider during the flood; therefore, even if the generator had been moved from the basement, 

it would not have been operational. Other losses included the electrical and mechanical systems, as well as interior architectural finishes. Plaster walls and ceilings and wood flooring on 

the ground floor were damaged. Clean-up and repairs were complicated by the presence of asbestos building materials.

The ESC annex wall system consists of clay tile and was saturated (Figure 4-38). School officials 

were reluctant to reopen the building because of concern about mold growth inside the clay walls. 

The building’s electrical and mechanical systems also sustained significant damages.

Functional Loss:  After the flood, both buildings were closed for ongoing repairs and asbestos 

abatement. Operations were moved to modular buildings. While many files and other important 

contents were lost, computers were removed from the ESC by boat during the flood, which allowed the school system to save much of its data and resume operations quickly.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-33

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

4.4.2 South School, Reedsburg, Wisconsin

Key Issues:  South School in Reedsburg, Wisconsin, sustained flooding due to sewer backup 

through drains in the basement. Damaged equipment and finishes were refurbished, not completely replaced.

Overview: South School, which was built in 1937, is in a residential area of Reedsburg. The school is 

not in the SFHA (Figure 4-39). Flooding inside the building was the result of storm sewer backup, 

which allowed water to enter through floor drains (Figure 4-40). The school had about 2 feet of 

standing water in the basement, which houses the kitchen, a cafeteria/multi-purpose room, and 

storage areas. In addition, the sub-basement was totally flooded.

Summary of Damages: The flooding resulted in the loss of two boilers and kitchen equipment, including a freezer, cooler, and stove. There was also damage to the interior wall and floor finishes in 

the cafeteria (Figure 4-41). The school district refurbished an air compressor and the main electrical panel, which were also damaged.

Functional Loss: The basement and sub-basement were cleaned and repaired during the summer 

break. Boiler replacement continued into the beginning of the 2008–2009 school year.

Figure 4-38. 

Clay tile wall system of the ESC Annex (Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa)
4-34 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

0 250 500 750 1000 125 Feet

Reedsburg South

Elementary School

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Floodway

Figure 4-39. Floodway and SFHA for South Elementary School (Reedsburg, Wisconsin)

Figure 4-40. 

Flooding in South School 

was due to backup through 

floor drains such as the 

one shown in this photo 

(Reedsburg, Wisconsin).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-35

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

4.4.3 Academic Buildings, University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, Oshkosh, Wisconsin

Key Issues: Backup in storm sewers caused surface water to enter steam tunnels and, through 

the steam tunnels, several academic buildings at the University of Wisconsin (UW) at Oshkosh. 

Backflow valves installed at the site successfully prevented some flooding from sanitary sewers. 

Following the flood, repairs were made to damaged buildings using flood damage-resistant materials and construction practices.

Overview: UW Oshkosh was founded in 1871 and is the third largest university in Wisconsin. The 

school’s total enrollment is approximately 12,700 students.1

The school is located near the Fox River (Figure 4-42), although river water was not the cause of 

flooding on campus. Flooding in university facilities was the result of backup in city-owned storm 

sewers (Figure 4-43), which allowed water to infiltrate buildings such as the Nursing & Education 

Building, the Clow Social Science Center, Swart Hall, and Oviatt House through utility tunnels. 

In most cases, standing water inside buildings was limited to a few inches. Massive flooding at the 

River Center, discussed in Section 4.4.4, led to a campus-wide power loss.

1 Chancellor’s Welcome, UW Oshkosh website. http://www.uwosh.edu/chancellor/welcome.php

Figure 4-41. 

Damaged paneling in the Pine Room, South 

School’s cafeteria and multi-purpose room, was 

refurbished to maintain the room’s character 

(Reedsburg, Wisconsin).
4-36 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Figure 4-42. 

Flood zones for the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh and buildings visited by the MAT (Oshkosh, Wisconsin)

Figure 4-43. 

City-owned storm drains 

contributed to flooding 

at UW Oshkosh, but this 

vulnerability was not 

considered prior to the 

2008 floods (Oshkosh, 

Wisconsin).

0 750 1500 2250 3000 375 Feet

Fox River

Swart Hall

Donner Hall

Oviatt House 

River Center

Nursing & Education Building

Clow Social Science Center

Kolf Physical Education Center

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Campus Property
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-37

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

UW Oshkosh had previously experienced flooding, and, as a result, had implemented mitigation 

measures such as installing check valves on sewer lines (at Donner Hall and others) and raising 

curbs and entrances (at the Kolf Physical Education and Sports Center) (Figure 4-44). These measures helped to avoid damages at certain buildings, and, as of September 2008, the school plans 

to continue mitigation efforts. After the flood, the staff refurbished damaged academic buildings 

with flood damage-resistant materials (Figure 4-45). The Institute for Business and Home Safety 

(IBHS) publication Water Damage Prevention for Commercial Buildings includes more information 

about the effects of grounds maintenance and landscaping on flood vulnerability.

Figure 4-44. 

The curb and sidewalk 

along the entrance to 

the Kolf Center had 

been raised as part of a 

previous mitigation project 

to prevent water that 

collected in the parking lot 

from entering the building 

and, thus, to provide 

positive drainage per local 

building codes (Oshkosh, 

Wisconsin).

Figure 4-45. 

Carpeting was replaced 

with flood damageresistant vinyl flooring 

throughout the damaged 

academic buildings 

(Oshkosh, Wisconsin).
4-38 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Summary of Damages: Temporary changes in grading for construction allowed surface water to 

collect behind Oviatt House. The flooding in the academic buildings resulted from surface storm 

water entering the steam tunnels behind Oviatt House (Figures 4-46 and 4-47). The tunnels, which 

connect to several buildings including those mentioned above, allowed floodwater to enter academic and mechanical areas in several basements. In one case, staff attempted to contain water 

in a mechanical room by placing a wooden plank in the doorway. As water flowed in through the 

tunnel, it was stopped from entering into the hallway and academic area.

Figure 4-46. 

Water entered steam conduits through above-ground openings like 

these. Construction near these openings contributed to the volume 

of water entering the conduits (Oshkosh, Wisconsin).

Damages incurred in the academic buildings included loss of carpeting, electrical floor outlets, 

drywall, and wall finishes. Following the floods, damaged basement finishes were replaced with 

flood damage-resistant materials:

n Carpeting and damaged tile were replaced with vinyl sheet flooring.

n Drywall was removed to 4 feet above the ground and replaced with mold-resistant cement 

board.

n Rather than installing floor-to-ceiling drywall, staff installed a strip of pressure treated 

lumber at floor level, left an air gap above it, and then installed cement board in order to 

prevent wicking in future flood events (similar to the technique shown in Figure 4-48).

Functional Loss: Because the flooding occurred in June, the school was able to clean affected buildings and make all necessary repairs before classes started in the fall.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-39

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Figure 4-48. 

Air gap in drywall to 

prevent wicking 

Figure 4-47. 

Water entered academic buildings through steam 

conduits, like the one in the background (Oshkosh, 

Wisconsin).
4-40 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

4.4.4 River Center, University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, Oshkosh, Wisconsin

Key Issues: Massive flooding at the UW at Oshkosh River Center caused the loss of a transformer, 

which led to a campus-wide power outage.

Overview: The River Center is a two-story structure that served as a cafeteria prior to the flood (see 

Figure 4-42). Storm sewer backup allowed water to flow from street level down a steep driveway 

into the River Center’s loading dock, and led to 8 feet of standing water in the basement (Figure 

4-49). Loss of a transformer at the River Center triggered a campus-wide power loss. Though campus power was restored within hours, the River Center was not restored before the 2008–2009 

academic year; it was without power for at least two months after the flood.

Figure 4-49. 

The steep driveway leads from street level to the 

loading dock at River Center’s basement (Oshkosh, 

Wisconsin).

As of September 2008, UW Oshkosh staff was considering several mitigation options.

Summary of Damages: The River Center basement housed the Department of Residence Life, 

including its offices, storage space, and maintenance shop. Office finishes, contents in storage, 

communications systems, and maintenance equipment were all severely damaged. In addition, 

electrical and mechanical equipment, elevator equipment, the fire alarm system, and the emergency generator were lost in the flood. Hydrostatic pressure from the floodwater caused damage 

to windows as well (Figure 4-50). 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-41

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Figure 4-50. Water 

pressure in the basement 

courtyard caused glass 

windows to shatter 

(Oshkosh, Wisconsin).

Functional Loss: UW Oshkosh operated six pumps for three days to empty the basement. As of 

September 2008, the building was not operational and the Department of Residence Life had relocated to another facility.

4.4.5 University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

Key Issues: Several buildings built above the BFE at the University of Iowa sustained major damages from stillwater flooding and from water intrusion through the utility tunnel system. Loss of 

access to the campus and, in particular, to medical facilities, hindered operations and presented 

a life safety hazard. Flooding also led to loss of power generation and central mechanical systems 

throughout campus, causing significant loss of functions and equipment. In spite of volunteer 

efforts in the days leading up to the event, the University sustained damage to several buildings including mechanical and electrical equipment, research equipment, and building contents.

Overview: The University of Iowa in Iowa City is a 1,900 acre campus of 119 buildings that straddles 

the Iowa River (Figure 4-51). The University has an enrollment of approximately 30,000 students 

in programs ranging from liberal arts to medicine.2

 Approximately 29 buildings and facilities sustained damages in the flood. Two months after the flood, 17 buildings and facilities remained 

closed, including:

n Art Building

n Art Building West

n Danforth Chapel

2 http://www.registrar.uiowa.edu/registrar/catalog/WhatIowaIsAllAbout/index.html
4-42 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

n Hancher Auditorium

n Hawkeye Court Apartments

n Iowa Advanced Technology Labs (IATL)

n Iowa Memorial Union (IMU)

n Museum of Art

n Power Plant

n Theatre Building

n Voxman/Clapp Music Building

n Cretzmeyer Track

n Lagoon Shelter House

n Softball Equipment Storage Building

n Softball Stadium

n Track Equipment Building

n IMU Footbridge

Mayflower Hall

Hancher Auditorium

Voxman Music Building

Theatre Building

Museum of Art

Art Building West

Art Building

General Hospital

North Hall

IATL

Iowa Memorial Union

English-Philosophy Building

Becker Communication 

Studies Building

Adler Journalism and Mass 

Communication Building

Lindquist Center Lindquist Center

Main Library

Campus Power Plant

Stanley Hydraulics

Laboratory

0 750 1500 2250 3000 375 Feet

Iowa River

Becker Communication

Danforth Chapel

H h

Hawkeye

Softball

Complex

Track

Equipment

Building

1-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood

Campus Property

Figure 4-51. Flood zones and inundated buildings for the University of Iowa (Iowa City, Iowa)

Table 4-2 summarizes building elevation, flood depth, and floodplain information for select 

University of Iowa structures.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-43

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Table 4-2. Elevation Data for Facilities at the University of Iowa

Facility

Floodplain

First Floor 

Elevation 

(Basement)

Flood 

Elevation 

(Approx.)

Base Flood 

Elevation

0.2-PercentAnnual-Chance 

Flood Elevation

Recurrence 

Interval Date

Mayflower Hall SFHA 636.2 655.4 650 654.3 >500 year Pre-FIRM

Art Building West SFHA 635.2 653.4 648.4 652.5 >500 year Post-FIRM

Museum of Art SFHA 641.7 653.3 648.4 652.5 >500 year Pre-FIRM

Voxman Music 

Building 

0.2-PercentAnnualChance

644.1 653.6 649 653 >500 year Pre-FIRM

On Friday June 13, 2008, the Iowa River levees for the Arts Campus and the IMU and IATL areas 

were breached (Figure 4-52). Flooding occurred at buildings on both sides of the river. A massive 

effort involving up to 2,000 volunteers who sandbagged buildings and removed building contents 

took place in the days before the flood. These emergency efforts saved valuable books from the 

library and the art collection from the Museum. The University estimates that approximately $750 

million in contents were removed prior to the flooding. 

Figure 4-52. 

Flooding of IATL and IMU 

(Source: University of 

Iowa Office of University 

Relations) 

Although most of the buildings were directly flooded by river water, Adler Journalism Building, 

Becker Hall, and the Power Plant were significantly damaged by water entering from the utility 

tunnels. Access to Iowa City, the campus, and the University Hospital was severely limited. Medical 

personnel had to be flown in by helicopter to meet manpower needs. Power was lost throughout 

the campus. Temporary power generation plants were brought onto campus and restored power 

within three days of the flooding. The hospital, which had limited power from an operational substation on the west side of the river, had a temporary boiler system installed to provide the hot 

water necessary to continue emergency services.
4-44 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Summary of Damages: The preliminary damages were estimated to be approximately $230 million. As of October 2008, the University, insurance companies, and FEMA were verifying those 

estimates. Approximate estimates of damages to some of the significant facilities’ property and 

contents are shown in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3. Approximate Estimates of Damages to Facilities at the University of Iowa

Building Initial Estimated Amount

IATL Flood Damages $42,000,000

Power Plant Flood Damages $25,100,000

IMU Flood Damages $23,000,000

Flood Damaged Utility Tunnel System $22,000,000

Voxman/Clapp Music Building Flood Damages $14,000,000

Hancher Auditorium Flood Damages $13,000,000

Art Building West Flood Damages $13,000,000

Art Building Flood Damages $8,000,000

Mayflower Residence Hall Flood Damages $8,000,000

Museum of Art Flood Damages $6,000,000

English-Philosophy Building Flood Damages $5,500,000

Theater Building Flood Damages $4,500,000

Adler Journalism and Mass Communication Building Flood Damages $3,500,000

Becker Communication Studies Building Flood Damage $3,500,000

Flood Damaged Footbridges $1,500,000

Madison Street Services Building Flood Damages $1,250,000

Main Library Flood Damages $1,100,000

North Hall Flood Damages $1,100,000

Hawkeye Court Apartments, 3 Bldgs, Units 301-376 Flood Damages $1,100,000

Stanley Hydraulics Laboratory Flood Damages $850,000

Lindquist Center Flood Damages $550,000

The buildings incurred damages to the building structure and architecture, but the majority of 

the damage was to equipment. Several buildings lost mechanical and electrical equipment in the 

basement levels. 

The MAT focused on five buildings located in the 1- or 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain and 

were most impacted by the floods:

n Voxman Music Building, a building with instructional and performance spaces

n Art Building West, an academic building

n Museum of Art

n Mayflower Hall, a residential building

n Campus power plant
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-45

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Voxman Building: Water came through glass window walls, doors, entryways, and ventilation intakes. 

The interior finishes were removed to a height of 4 feet and replaced on the first floor. Most of 

the mechanical and electrical equipment and some of the damaged ductwork in the basement was 

replaced (Figure 4-53).

Figure 4-53. 

Interior damage at Voxman Building (Iowa City, 

Iowa)

Art Building West: Although the first floor was designed to be 1 foot above the BFE, Art Building 

West has a below-grade basement that is well below the BFE. The building had 3 to 4 feet of standing water on the first floor in addition to complete flooding of the basement. The basement 

housed all the electrical and mechanical systems as well as two elevators, which were completely 

under water and required extensive repairs or replacement. The first floor sustained damage to 

drywall partitions, electrical wiring and devices, mechanical ductwork, and floor finishes. The 

glass panels of the exterior wall on the north side filled with water and had to be cleaned (Figure 

4-54). Mold intrusion was a concern, and appropriate mitigation was underway in October 2008.
4-46 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Figure 4-54. 

Double glass panels trapped river water between panes in structural glass walls at the Art Building West (Iowa 

City, Iowa).

Museum of Art: This building had 2 to 6 inches of water on the first floor and several feet of water in the basement. The basement housed all the electrical and mechanical systems, which were 

completely under water and required extensive repairs or replacement. The first floor sustained 

damage to drywall partitions, electrical wiring and devices, mechanical ductwork, and floor finishes (Figure 4-55). The art collection was removed prior to flooding and will not be returned; as 

of October 2008, the University was evaluating the structure for other possible uses.

Mayflower Residence Hall: Built in 1968 and acquired by the University in 1983, this building is a 

medium rise, eight-story dormitory. It is located upstream of the main campus and in the SFHA. 

The building, which sits on top of a two-story, below-grade parking structure, had 2 inches of water on the first floor. The parking structure, which housed electrical and mechanical systems, was 

completely flooded (Figure 4-56). Although the parking structure had not been used for parking 

in several years, the electrical and mechanical equipment were severely damaged. The first floor 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-47

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

sustained damage to wooden doors and frames, drywall partitions, appliances, casework, electrical wiring and devices, mechanical ductwork, and floor finishes in the housing areas. The Food 

Services area sustained major damage to interior architectural finishes and food service equipment. The building was repaired and reoccupied in time for the 2008–2009 academic year.

Figure 4-55. Drywall 

damage on first floor of Art 

Museum (Iowa City, Iowa) 

Figure 4-56. Entrance to the parking garage 

beneath the Mayflower Residence Hall 

(Iowa City, Iowa)
4-48 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Power Plant: A portion of the Power Plant is located in the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain 

along the Iowa River. This building had major flooding in the basement, which housed the power, 

processing, pumping, and controls of the steam generation equipment for the entire campus. The 

controls were completely submerged, and, as a result, they needed extensive repairs. In October 

2008, the building was under evaluation for structural damage; the basement floor was estimated 

to have incurred damage of over $25 million, primarily to the main steam generation equipment 

(Figure 4-57).

Figure 4-57. 

Power plant site repairs 

(Iowa City, Iowa)

Utility Tunnels: Water entered campus utility tunnels through access hatches and tunnel vents, and 

through tunnel openings in the Power Plant. The utility tunnels, which run from the Power Plant 

carrying steam and water piping and communication lines throughout the campus, were flooded 

in the following locations:

n On the west side of the river, flooding occurred in:

n The Art tunnel from the Voxman/Clapp Music Building to the Art Building.

n Dam tunnel across the river and into the Grand Avenue tunnel.

n International Center tunnel from Art Building to the International Center.

n On the east side of the river, flooding occurred in:

n The IMU tunnel from north of the IATL to the Power Plant.

n The Old Capitol tunnel from the Power Plant to the Seamans Center.

The tunnels incurred damages to steam pipe insulation, valves, pipe penetrations, ductwork, and 

building entrances (Figures 4-58 and 4-59).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-49

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Figure 4-58. Schematic layout of campus tunnels indicating flooded areas 

SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF IOWA FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

Functional Loss: As of October 2008, the University was operational with limitations due to closed 

buildings, such as the Art Museum, Art Building West, Voxman Music Building, and the IATL 

building. The Iowa Memorial Union Bookstore was relocated to the University Capitol Centre 

during repairs. The Museum of Art’s collection was removed and stored in Chicago. The athletic 

programs were relocated to available space. Major issues facing the University include expediting 

repairs, replacing damaged facilities, and mitigating future flooding disasters while maintaining 

the character of the Iowa River and the University of Iowa campus.
4-50 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Figure 4-59. 

Repair to tunnel entrance to Alder Journalism and 

Mass Communications Building (Iowa City, Iowa)

4.5 Lessons Learned

Table 4.5 lists the critical and essential facilities reviewed in Chapter 4 and presents lessons learned 

from the 2008 floods. Each lesson is an observation or recommendation based on observed damages and conversations with facility staff and includes a reference to one or more federal documents 

that can provide additional guidance. This table is recommended as a reference guideline for 

users prior to and during site selection, preliminary design, and building rehabilitation of an existing facility. The table is meant to illustrate the issues encountered by the MAT in flood damaged 

areas of Iowa and Wisconsin, to recommend strategies for mitigating those problems, and to indicate federal publications for further reference. The conclusions and recommendations presented 

here are discussed in detail in Chapters 6 and 7 of this report.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-51

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Table 4-4. Lessons Learned for Critical and Essential Facilities

Critical Facilities (Category III)

Essential 

Facilities 

(Category IV)

Lessons LearnedCedar Rapids City Hall/Linn County CourthouseLinn County Detention CenterCedar Rapids Education Services Center/AnnexSouth SchoolUW Oshkosh Academic BuildingsUW Oshkosh River CenterUniversity of IowaReedsburg WWTFReedsburg Sewer Pump StationBaraboo WWTFJefferson WWTFCedar Falls Utility PlantMercy Medical CenterLinn County Sheriff’s DepartmentCedar Rapids Police DepartmentLa Valle Fire Station

General

Critical facilities should be protected to 

the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood 

or the ASCE 24 recommended level, 

whichever is greater.

Reference: FEMA 543

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

New critical facilities should be sited 

outside of the 0.2-percent-annualchance floodplain.

Reference: FEMA 543

●

Planning and Preparedness

Critical actions (contents and functions 

including public records, operations 

centers, and emergency equipment) 

should be located above the 0.2-percentannual-chance flood elevation.

Reference: FEMA 348, E.O. 11988, FEMA 543

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Critical medical or research functions 

and equipment and valuable property 

such as art and music equipment in 

individual buildings should be located 

above the 0.2-percent-annual-chance 

flood elevation.

Reference: FEMA 348, FEMA 543

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Emergency plans must consider 

the availability of power supply for 

emergency equipment. Flooding caused 

loss of off-site natural gas supplies for 

generators. Anchored, on-site fuel tanks 

for emergency generators should be 

considered.

Reference: FEMA 543, FEMA 577

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
4-52 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Critical Facilities (Category III)

Essential 

Facilities 

(Category IV)

Lessons LearnedCedar Rapids City Hall/Linn County CourthouseLinn County Detention CenterCedar Rapids Education Services Center/AnnexSouth SchoolUW Oshkosh Academic BuildingsUW Oshkosh River CenterUniversity of IowaReedsburg WWTFReedsburg Sewer Pump StationBaraboo WWTFJefferson WWTFCedar Falls Utility PlantMercy Medical CenterLinn County Sheriff’s DepartmentCedar Rapids Police DepartmentLa Valle Fire Station

Planning and Preparedness (cont.)

Detailed emergency plans and 

checklists are needed for prisons’ 

response to natural disasters, including 

detailed plans and preparedness for 

offsite evacuation of prisoners.

Reference: Critical Analysis of Emergency 

Preparedness, U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Corrections

●

Building Systems

Building utilities including electrical, 

mechanical, and gas should be elevated 

to or above the 0.2-percent-annualchance flood elevation.

Reference: FEMA 348

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Installation of elevator equipment 

should comply with guidance in NFIP 

TB 4.

Reference: NFIP TB 4

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Risk and Remediation

Flood recurrence intervals are difficult 

to predict given limited history for 

hydrological data and long-term weather 

patterns.

Reference: Galloway Report

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Facilities protected by levees or 

floodwalls should include redundant 

flood protection measures, including 

elevating critical equipment and 

functions.

Reference: FEMA 543

● ● ●

Table 4-4. Lessons Learned for Critical and Essential Facilities (continued)
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-53

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Critical Facilities (Category III)

Essential 

Facilities 

(Category IV)

Lessons LearnedCedar Rapids City Hall/Linn County CourthouseLinn County Detention CenterCedar Rapids Education Services Center/AnnexSouth SchoolUW Oshkosh Academic BuildingsUW Oshkosh River CenterUniversity of IowaReedsburg WWTFReedsburg Sewer Pump StationBaraboo WWTFJefferson WWTFCedar Falls Utility PlantMercy Medical CenterLinn County Sheriff’s DepartmentCedar Rapids Police DepartmentLa Valle Fire Station

Risk and Remediation (cont.)

Manufactured products such as 

water-filled bladders, sand-filled 

containers, frame-supported fabrics, 

and others that serve as temporary 

barriers to hold back floodwater can 

be used as standalone mitigation 

measures or to reinforce existing, 

more permanent mitigation measures. 

Facility owners considering purchasing 

such manufactured products to reduce 

future flood damage should consider 

whether these products have been 

subjected to the testing and standards 

within the National Program to Test 

and Certify Flood Proofing and Flood 

Fighting Products.

Reference: National Program to Test and 

Certify Flood Proofing and Flood Fighting 

Products

● ● ● ● ● ●

Utility Tunnels

Conduct a vulnerability assessment 

of utility tunnels to determine potential 

points of entry. Utility tunnels should 

be protected against flooding: 

n Tunnel hatches and vents should 

be raised to elevations that prevent 

floodwater entry

n Tunnel access points to buildings 

should be dry floodproofed

Reference: NA

● ● ●

Table 4-4. Lessons Learned for Critical and Essential Facilities (continued)
4-54 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

4 CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES

Critical Facilities (Category III)

Essential 

Facilities 

(Category IV)

Lessons LearnedCedar Rapids City Hall/Linn County CourthouseLinn County Detention CenterCedar Rapids Education Services Center/AnnexSouth SchoolUW Oshkosh Academic BuildingsUW Oshkosh River CenterUniversity of IowaReedsburg WWTFReedsburg Sewer Pump StationBaraboo WWTFJefferson WWTFCedar Falls Utility PlantMercy Medical CenterLinn County Sheriff’s DepartmentCedar Rapids Police DepartmentLa Valle Fire Station

Access

Floodprone access routes should be 

elevated to no more than 1 to 2 feet 

below the 0.2-percent-annual-chance 

flood elevation, particularly for WWTFs, 

which tend to be in low-lying areas.

Reference: FEMA 543

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Access ramps and underground tunnels 

to and from underground parking 

garages can provide points of entry 

for water and should be watertight or 

otherwise floodproofed.

Reference: FEMA 543 & NFIP TB 6 

● ● ● ●

All points of entry, including stairwells, 

loading ramps, and courtyards, must be 

considered in mitigating floods.

Reference: FEMA 543

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Sewers and Wastewater Management

Replacing manhole covers to ensure 

they are watertight can protect sewers 

from floodwater infiltration.

Reference: FEMA 348

● ● ● ●

Reducing direct inflows to wastewater 

treatment facilities can help to avoid 

overwhelming equipment and should 

be considered as part of emergency 

preparedness plans.

Reference: NA

● ● ●

Backflow prevention valves can help to 

avoid sewer system backup in a facility’s 

toilets, drains, etc.

Reference: FEMA 348

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Table 4-4. Lessons Learned for Critical and Essential Facilities (continued)
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 4-55

CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL FACILITIES 4

Critical Facilities (Category III)

Essential 

Facilities 

(Category IV)

Lessons LearnedCedar Rapids City Hall/Linn County CourthouseLinn County Detention CenterCedar Rapids Education Services Center/AnnexSouth SchoolUW Oshkosh Academic BuildingsUW Oshkosh River CenterUniversity of IowaReedsburg WWTFReedsburg Sewer Pump StationBaraboo WWTFJefferson WWTFCedar Falls Utility PlantMercy Medical CenterLinn County Sheriff’s DepartmentCedar Rapids Police DepartmentLa Valle Fire Station

Flood Damage-Resistant Materials

For facilities that cannot be elevated, 

staff should install flood damageresistant materials below the 

0.2-percent-annual-chance flood 

elevation. Using flood damage-resistant 

materials and construction practices 

can reduce losses and facilitate 

cleanup.

Reference: NFIP TB 2

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Glazing located below the design flood 

elevation should be designed to resist 

flood-related loads.

Reference: NFIP TB 2

● ● ● ●

Table 4-4. Lessons Learned for Critical and Essential Facilities (continued)

MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 5-1

MITIGATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT 5

Mitigation Program 

Assessment 

Since the 1993 floods in the Midwest, existing and new 

mitigation programs have evolved to encourage and fund 

mitigation efforts, particularly in incorporating mitigation 

into the planning process at the state and community level. 

When Iowa and Wisconsin experienced large-scale flooding 

in 1993 and subsequently worked to recover as well as mitigate 

future losses in some locations, federal support for mitigation 

began to gain momentum in these areas. 

As a result, several mitigation grant programs have been created that increase the amount of 

funding available for hazard mitigation. In light of this evolution, it is worth exploring how 

Iowa and Wisconsin have used these programs and how the current programs are assisting recovery efforts.

5

Stacy Robinson
5-2 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

5 MITIGATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

FEMA offers several programs that provide technical assistance and grant funding to sponsor 

mitigation efforts across the United States. Numerous mitigation grants are awarded each year to 

states and communities to undertake mitigation projects to prevent future loss of life and property 

resulting from hazard impacts. This chapter will assess the following programs and how they relate 

to the impacted areas in Iowa and Wisconsin:

n Mitigation Planning

n Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs

n Public Assistance

n Flood Insurance

5.1 Mitigation Planning

In an effort to reduce the nation’s mounting natural disaster losses, Congress passed the Disaster 

Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) in order to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). Section 322 of DMA 2000 emphasizes the need for state 

and local government entities to closely coordinate on mitigation planning activities, and it makes 

the development of a hazard mitigation plan a specific eligibility requirement for any local government applying for federal mitigation grant funding, thus pre-positioning communities to receive 

available mitigation funds before and after the next disaster strikes. The rules governing how state, 

local, and Indian Tribal governments meet these requirements are outlined in the Mitigation 

Planning Regulations (interim Final Rule), as published in the CFR. 

FEMA published multi-hazard mitigation planning guidance for state, local, and Indian Tribal 

governments to use in meeting the requirements of the Mitigation Planning regulations under 

the Stafford Act and 44 CFR § 201. Also, FEMA provides several publications with information and 

tools to assist mitigation planning efforts:

n Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-1) 

n Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (FEMA 386-2) 

n Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementing Strategies 

(FEMA 386-3) 

n Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the Hazard Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-4) 

n Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-5) 

n Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations into Hazard Mitigation Planning

(FEMA 386-6) 

n Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7) 

n Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) 

n Using the Hazard Mitigation Plan to Prepare Successful Mitigation Projects (FEMA 386-9) 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 5-3

MITIGATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT 5

A hazard mitigation plan should establish a comprehensive approach to hazard mitigation, including the broad community vision and guiding principles for reducing risk. By investing in 

mitigation before a hazard event occurs, a community can prevent or lessen future damages, and, 

thus, significantly reduce the need for emergency response, and repair and recovery operations 

and funding. Mitigation practices help communities to become more resilient—able to recover 

more quickly and with fewer long term impacts. Residents, businesses, and industries re-establish 

themselves in the wake of a disaster, getting the community economy back on track sooner and 

with less interruption.

Mitigation planning offers many benefits, including:

n Saving lives and property

n Saving money (including insurance payouts; federal, state, local, and private dollars; etc.)

n Demonstrating a firm commitment to improving community health and safety

n Expediting recovery following disasters, as well as the receipt of pre-disaster and post-disaster 

grant funding

n Reducing future vulnerability through wise development and post-disaster recovery and 

reconstruction

The benefits of mitigation planning go beyond solely reducing hazard vulnerability. Measures 

such as the acquisition or regulation of land in known hazard areas can help achieve multiple community goals, such as preserving open space, maintaining environmental health, and enhancing 

recreational opportunities. Thus, the local mitigation planning process should be integrated with 

other concurrent local planning efforts, and any proposed mitigation strategies must take into account other existing community goals or initiatives that will either complement or hinder their 

future implementation.

However, some communities may not approach the mitigation planning process properly, neglecting to incorporate good planning practices and meaningful strategies into their plan as they 

try to meet the requirements of DMA 2000. Though the planning process is federally mandated, 

communities should not complete it as an exercise in achieving FEMA approval. Rather, communities should embrace the process with the goal of developing wisely and protecting citizens and 

property through mitigation. FEMA provides numerous resources and technical assistance to communities to support local mitigation planning efforts.

Those communities that embrace the planning process and identify specific areas of concern and 

actions to pursue are often better prepared to submit grant applications for mitigation funds. 

Ultimately, a good mitigation plan should provide a “road map” that can be followed over time 

to strategically pursue holistic mitigation efforts. Ideally, a mitigation plan should include specific 

projects to target mitigation efforts and assign local department or staff personnel to bring the 

project to fruition. Mitigation actions target residential and commercial structures as well as critical facilities, and include education and outreach components as well.
5-4 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

5 MITIGATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

Both Iowa and Wisconsin have FEMA-approved Enhanced State Mitigation Plans, and four Tribal 

groups in Wisconsin each have a FEMA-approved Tribal State Plan. In Iowa, as of February 3, 

2009, 209 jurisdictions are covered by Hazard Mitigation Plans and 519 jurisdictions have plans in 

progress. In Wisconsin, as of March 2009, there are 58 approved plans covering 532 jurisdictions, 

and 14 multi-jurisdictional plans are currently in progress. Since 2006, Iowa has received funding 

through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program for the creation or update of 87 mitigation 

plans. Wisconsin has received funding for 21 mitigation plans through the PDM program, as well 

as one plan through the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. Most of the locations visited 

by the MAT were covered under a FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation Plan at the time of the flood. 

However, the jurisdictions of Des Moines, Iowa City, Coralville, Columbus Junction, Oakville, and 

Palo in Iowa and Richland Center in Wisconsin are not covered by a mitigation plan. According to 

Iowa Homeland Security, the jurisdictions of Des Moines, Iowa City, and Coralville are in the process of developing a mitigation plan as of February 2009.

5.2 Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Programs

FEMA manages several HMA programs specifically targeting mitigation, including the Hazard 

Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), and the FMA, PDM, Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC), and 

Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) programs. The HMGP and PDM programs are authorized by the 

Stafford Act and offer funding for mitigation planning and project activities that address multiple natural hazard events. The FMA, RFC, and SRL programs are authorized by the National 

Flood Insurance Act as amended in 2004 and focus funding efforts on reducing claims against the 

NFIP. Funding under HMA programs is subject to availability of annual appropriations and under 

HMGP to the amount of FEMA disaster recovery assistance under a presidential major disaster 

declaration. Table 5-1 briefly describes each program and purpose.

Table 5-1. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs

Mitigation Grant 

Program Authorization Year 

Authorized Purpose

Hazard Mitigation 

Grant Program 

(HMGP)

Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act

1988

Activated after a presidential disaster declaration; 

provides funds on a sliding scale formula based 

on a percentage of the total federal assistance for 

a disaster for long-term mitigation measures to 

reduce vulnerability to natural hazards

Flood Mitigation 

Assistance (FMA)

National Flood Insurance 

Reform Act 1994 Reduce or eliminate claims against the NFIP

Pre-Disaster 

Mitigation (PDM) Disaster Mitigation Act 2000

National competitive program focuses on 

mitigation project and planning activities that 

address multiple natural hazards

Repetitive Flood 

Claims (RFC)

Bunning-BereuterBlumenauer Flood 

Insurance Reform Act 

2004

Reduce flood claims against the NFIP through 

flood mitigation; properties must be currently NFIP 

insured and have had at least one NFIP claim

Severe Repetitive 

Loss (SRL)

Bunning-BereuterBlumenauer Flood 

Insurance Reform Act

2004

Reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood 

damage to SRL residential structures currently 

insured under the NFIP 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 5-5

MITIGATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT 5

Through Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, FEMA has conducted these programs separately, with separate application cycles and guidance. Beginning in FY2009, FEMA’s Mitigation Directorate has unified 

the multi-hazard PDM program with the FMA, RFC, and SRL programs into a new HMA program 

application cycle. Aligning these programs into one application cycle will streamline the application review and program delivery resources; encourage sound, cost-effective mitigation projects; 

and enhance the quality and efficiency of grant awards on an allocation and competitive basis to 

state, territory, Tribal, and local entities to expand national outreach for all types of mitigation. 

The HMGP has been added to the HMA program for FY2010.

FEMA’s HMA grant programs provide funding for eligible mitigation activities that reduce disaster 

losses and protect life and property from future disaster damages (see Table 5-2).

Table 5-2. Eligible Flood Mitigation Activities by Program

Eligible Activities

 HMGP PDM FMA RFC SRL

Mitigation Projects 

Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition for purposes of open 

space 

3 3 3 3 3

Property Acquisition and Structure Relocation 3 3 3 3 3

Structure Elevation 3 3 3 3 3

Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures 3 3 3 3 3

Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures 3 3 3 3

Minor Localized Flood Reduction Projects 3 3 3 3 3

Mitigation Reconstruction 3

Hazard Mitigation Planning 3 3 3

5.2.1 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)

After a major disaster declaration, the HMGP provides grants to state and local governments to 

implement hazard mitigation measures that will make a long-term impact and reduce the loss of 

life and property due to natural disasters. 

As of July 31, 2008, there have been 90 flood-related approved HMGP projects (totaling 1,422 

properties) in Iowa and 47 flood-related approved HMGP projects (totaling 483 properties) in 

Wisconsin, as shown in Figure 5-1. The vast majority of these projects, funded in Iowa from 1993 

to 2005 and in Wisconsin from 1994 to 2008, have focused on acquisition activities to remove 
5-6 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

5 MITIGATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

structures prone to riverine flooding. FEMA requires that any property voluntarily acquired by local governments through FEMA mitigation grant programs be deed-restricted to be used only for 

open space, recreation, or wetlands in perpetuity. Figure 5-2 is an example of a residential lot converted to open space utilizing HMGP funding. 

Figure 5-1. 

Location of HMGP projects in Iowa and Wisconsin (Based on FEMA mitigation grant programs data through 

July 31, 2008)
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 5-7

MITIGATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT 5

Figure 5-2. 

Acquisition for the 

purposes of open space 

removes buildings 

from the floodplain to 

prevent future damages. 

Residents relocate 

outside of the floodplain 

and green open space is 

provided in a community 

(Marion, Iowa).

Acquisition guidelines are provided in 44 CFR § 80, Property Acquisition and Relocation for Open 

Space, and describe the requirements of land use following acquisition. Acquiring floodprone 

properties with FEMA funds requires that deed restrictions be recorded to ensure that the property be dedicated as open space in perpetuity to restore and/or conserve the natural floodplain 

functions and that no new development can ever occur on the property (limited uses are allowed 

but must be coordinated with FEMA). This mitigation option permanently removes people and 

structures from harm’s way, and reduces future emotional despair and financial costs associated 

with a community’s disaster response, recovery, and repair. Iowa and Wisconsin have supported 

and successfully completed numerous acquisition projects, and they were among the first to acquire floodprone properties through the HMGP program following the 1993 floods. Figure 5-3 

displays the location of FEMA-funded acquisitions in Cedar Falls, Iowa, along with substantial damage inspection results using FEMA’s RSDE software for numerous properties in the same area. If 

the substantially damaged properties had been acquired, their damages could have been avoided. 

HMGP funding is available to eligible communities in both Iowa and Wisconsin as a result of this 

disaster. Both states support using acquisition projects as a priority for HMGP funding for the 2008 

flood disaster. As of January 2009, the State of Iowa had received notices from 35 communities interested in pursuing acquisition of 2,562 properties totaling over $251 million. The City of Cedar 

Rapids alone submitted a notice of interest to acquire 1,126 properties through HMGP, making up 

44 percent of the total properties interested in acquisition across the state. Wisconsin also places a 

priority on acquisition, especially focusing on substantially damaged structures and repetitive loss 

properties that are primary residences or residential rental properties. 
5-8 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

5 MITIGATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

Figure 5-3. 

Location of FEMA acquisition projects funded primarily through the HMGP, along with substantial damage 

inspection information for residences in the same area (Cedar Falls, Iowa) (Based on FEMA mitigation grant 

programs data through July 31, 2008)

5.2.2 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)

The FMA grant program was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 

(42 U.S.C. 4101) with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the NFIP. An allocation is 

provided to each state based on the total number of NFIP insurance policies and the total number 

of repetitive loss properties within the state. States can submit additional projects that exceed their 

annual allocation for national consideration. 

As of July 31, 2008, there had been 11 approved FMA projects in Iowa including acquisition and 

stormwater management and 8 approved projects in Wisconsin acquiring 9 properties. The majority of these projects, funded in Iowa from 2001 to 2006 and in Wisconsin from 1997 to 2007, 

focused on acquisition of structures prone to riverine flooding. 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 5-9

MITIGATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT 5

5.2.3 Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM)

The PDM grant program, authorized under DMA 2000, awards funds prior to the occurrence of 

a disaster event. This competitive grant process encourages planning and mitigation measures before disaster strikes so that overall risks to people and property are reduced while also reducing 

the need for funding following a disaster declaration. Congress allocates funding for this program 

each year, offering millions of dollars for award.

As of July 31, 2008, there had been one approved flood-related PDM project mitigating three properties in Iowa and five approved flood-related projects in Wisconsin mitigating several properties 

through acquisition and stormwater management. The majority of these projects, funded in Iowa 

in 2005 and in Wisconsin from 2003 to 2007, focused on acquisition of structures prone to riverine 

flooding. 

5.2.4 Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC)

The RFC grant program was authorized in 2004 by the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood 

Insurance Reform Act (P.L. 108–264), which amended the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) 

of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001, et al). Up to $10 million in RFC funds is available each year to encourage 

states and communities to reduce flood damages to insured properties that have had one or more 

claims to the NFIP. Unlike other FEMA mitigation programs, RFC funds do not require a local 

match and can be funded with up to a 100 percent federal share.

As of July 31, 2008, Iowa had submitted one RFC application for acquisition in FY2006 (and an 

application for corresponding management costs), and Wisconsin had not submitted any applications for RFC program funds. 

5.2.5 Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL)

The SRL grant program was authorized in 2004 by the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood 

Insurance Reform Act, which amended the NFIA of 1968. SRL program funds are provided to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to SRL structures insured under the NFIP. 

The definition of SRL as applied to this program was established in Section 1361A of the NFIA, as 

amended in 2004, 42 U.S.C. 4102a, and reads as follows: 

An SRL property is defined as a residential property that is covered under an NFIP flood 

insurance policy and:

(a) That has at least four NFIP claim payments (including building and contents) over $5,000 

each, and the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeds $20,000; or

(b) For which at least two separate claims payments (building payments only) have been made with the 

cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the market value of the building.

For both (a) and (b) above, at least two of the referenced claims must have occurred within any tenyear period, and must be greater than 10 days apart.
5-10 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

5 MITIGATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

FEMA maintains a list of properties that may qualify as SRL properties based on NFIP claim data 

and validates properties before deeming them as SRL. State allocations are provided on an annual 

basis and are based on the number of validated SRL properties per state. Competitive funds are 

often available from remaining unallocated funds.

It should be noted that the designation of an SRL property applies only to structures with a history 

of flood insurance and does not consider those uninsured structures that have been impacted by 

multiple events over time that potentially resulted in losses. 

As outlined in the FY2010 SRL guidance, “Property owners who decline formal offers of mitigation 

assistance, in the form of a Mitigation Offer Letter, will be subject to increases to their insurance 

premium rates.” Facing the potential of large increases in flood insurance premiums, property 

owners should seriously consider any offers for mitigation assistance under the SRL program. 

For the FY2009 SRL program, both Iowa and Wisconsin are considered “non-target states,” meaning that they each have fewer than 51 structures designated as SRL properties. As of November 

30, 2008, Iowa had 20 validated SRL properties and Wisconsin had 3 validated SRL properties 

that qualified for SRL funding, as shown in Figure 5-4. As of November 30, 2008, neither Iowa nor 

Wisconsin had submitted any applications for SRL program funds. 

Figure 5-4. SRL property locations in Iowa and Wisconsin
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 5-11

MITIGATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT 5

5.3 Public Assistance

FEMA’s Public Assistance (PA) disaster recovery program, in partnership with Mitigation, ensures 

federal grants and technical assistance are effectively provided to local, state, and Tribal communities by planning and implementing immediate rebuilding actions that are conducive to long-term 

community sustainability and disaster resilience. 

FEMA’s PA program was authorized under Section 406 of the Stafford Act. It provides assistance 

to state, Tribal, and local governments, and certain types of Private Nonprofit (PNP) organizations following a presidentially declared disaster to aid with response and recovery through debris 

removal and emergency protective measures, and repair, replacement, or restoration of disasterdamaged, publicly owned facilities and the facilities of certain PNP organizations. Section 406 

provides discretionary authority to fund mitigation measures in conjunction with the repair of 

damaged facilities. The mitigation measures, which may amount to up to 15 percent of the total 

eligible cost of the eligible repair work on a particular project, must be cost-effective, related to 

eligible disaster-related damages, and directly reduce the potential of future, similar disaster damages to the eligible facility. Costs approved for project-specific mitigation measures under PA may 

not be applied to improved projects that will involve the replacement of a disaster-damaged facility, whether on the same site or an alternate site. 

Under the federal disaster declarations for this event, 84 counties in Iowa and 29 counties in 

Wisconsin are eligible for PA program funding. In Iowa, the State/FEMA Public Assistance program obligated over $651 million to the state for reimbursements for more than 1,100 applications 

representing over 9,000 PA projects for government-related, eligible expenses in the area of emergency response measures, debris removal, and repair or restoration of disaster-damaged public 

infrastructure by April 2009.1

 The University of Iowa is working with PA to request over $231 million for building and contents damage, protective measures and debris removal as a result of the 

floods.2

 In Wisconsin as of March 2009, FEMA PA grants totaling more than $70 million had been 

obligated for projects from public entities for government-related, eligible expenses in the areas 

of emergency response measures, debris removal, and repair or restoration of disaster-damaged 

public infrastructure.3

5.4 Flood Insurance 

Flood insurance is sold separately from homeowners insurance and protects against losses to buildings and their contents, not the land surrounding them. The coverage is available for residential 

and commercial buildings in communities that participate in the NFIP and applies whether the 

flooding results from heavy or prolonged rains, coastal storm surge, snow melt, blocked storm 

drainage systems, levee dam failure, or other causes. To be considered a flood, the water must cover at least two acres or affect at least two properties. Flood insurance is sold and serviced by private 

1 Rebuild Iowa Office. “Facts and Figures.” April 15, 2009. http://www.rio.iowa.gov/resources/facts.html

2 University of Iowa. “University of Iowa Flood Action Plans, January 2009.” http://www.uiowa.edu/floodrecovery/recovery-reports/

action-plan-jan-09.pdf

3 Gray, Roxanne. Wisconsin State Hazard Mitigation Officer.
5-12 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

5 MITIGATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

insurers, and backed by the federal government. Flood insurance covers both homes and businesses. For residential properties, the maximum building coverage is $250,000 and the maximum 

contents coverage is $100,000. Commercial properties can be insured to a maximum of $500,000 

in building coverage and $500,000 for contents. A 30-day waiting period is required for new flood 

insurance policies, which prevents property owners from obtaining insurance while a flood is in 

progress. However, two exceptions to this waiting period include: 

n If the initial purchase of flood insurance is in connection with the making, increasing, 

extending, or renewing of a loan, there is no waiting period. Coverage becomes effective at 

the time of the loan, provided application and payment of premium is made at or prior to 

loan closing.

n If the initial purchase of flood insurance is made during the 13-month period following the 

effective date of a revised flood map for a community, there is a 1-day waiting period. This 

applies only where the FIRM is revised to show the building to be in a SFHA when it had not 

previously been in a SFHA. 

Flood insurance is available for properties located both within and outside of floodplains, and the 

type of policy and cost vary depending on the subject property’s flood risk. Factors such as date 

of construction, type of building, and methods of construction are considered in the rating. For 

properties located in high-risk areas, mortgage lenders require the property owner to purchase 

and maintain a Standard Policy for loan approval and throughout the life of the loan. Outside of 

high-risk areas, flood insurance is available through a Preferred Risk Policy, which offers lower 

premiums due to the decreased risk. Although these low-to-moderate risk areas are statistically less 

likely to experience flooding, it does happen. In fact, nearly 25 percent of all claims made to the 

NFIP are for properties from low-to-moderate risk areas. 

The NFIP’s CRS is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes community floodplain management activities that exceed the NFIP requirements. For CRS-participating communities, incentives 

are provided for the community to take actions that not only improve citizen health and safety, but 

that can also result in out-of-pocket savings for property owners through reduced insurance rates.

After a building is determined by the appropriate authority (i.e., local building department or 

floodplain administrator) to be substantially damaged or a repetitive loss property, Increased Cost 

of Compliance funds may be claimed through the NFIP to pay for additional mitigation and risk 

reduction measures to be implemented during recovery or reconstruction as required to bring 

the building to local code requirements, including (but not limited to) elevation or relocation 

of the structure. Wisconsin floodplain management regulations require that damages calculated 

to structures are cumulative over the life of the structure, so a home can be considered substantially damaged at a much lower threshold. To assist flood insurance policyholders in covering 

the costs of meeting these requirements, the NFIP includes up to $30,000 of Increased Cost of 

Compliance coverage for all new and renewed Standard Flood Insurance Policies. An Increased 

Cost of Compliance claim is handled separately from the standard policy and can only be filed 

if the community determines that the policyholder’s home or business has been substantially 

damaged or repetitively damaged by a flood. Once a community has made this determination, 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 5-13

MITIGATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT 5

policyholders should contact their insurance company or agent who wrote their flood policy to 

file an Increased Cost of Compliance claim, and their insurer will assign a claims representative 

to assist with the processing of the Increased Cost of Compliance claim. The NFIP provides a brochure entitled “National Flood Insurance Program Increased Cost of Compliance Coverage How 

You Can Benefit” to educate property owners on this program.

A local floodplain administrator must understand and execute his post-flood responsibilities, particularly substantial damage assessments. In addition, the community can add a repetitive loss 

provision to their floodplain management ordinance, if not already included. FEMA has prepared “The NFIP Increased Cost of Compliance Coverage: Guidance for State and Local Officials” 

(FEMA 301) to assist local officials with the Increased Cost of Compliance process.

Many policyholders and insurance agents in the impacted area lack knowledge regarding additional funds available through the NFIP’s Increased Cost of Compliance program. Several property 

owners in Iowa indicated to the MAT that they contacted their flood insurance agent after the 

flooding to inquire about Increased Cost of Compliance availability and were met with confusion 

and lack of awareness of the program by the agents. Other policyholders were not aware that these 

funds were available through their existing policy. Policyholders and insurance agents, as well as 

floodplain managers, should educate themselves regarding the Increased Cost of Compliance program before flooding occurs.

NFIP data indicates that a large number of properties impacted by the June 2008 floods were underinsured or had no insurance coverage, including those both inside and outside of the SFHA. 

According to the City of Cedar Rapids, only 36 percent of flood-impacted homes in the Cedar 

Rapids SFHA had flood insurance at the time of the flood. Many residents appeared to misunderstand the flood risk of their property, despite their locations in the floodplain or behind levees. 

Some residents understood that their property was located in the floodplain but did not believe 

that their property could be affected, while others were unaware of their property’s location in 

relation to the floodplain, including the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) floodplain as 

indicated on the FIRM. Several residents reported that they did not experience any flooding in 

1993, which led them to mistakenly assume that they would not experience flooding in the 2008 

flood event. Misperception of personal risk is a common reason why property owners choose not 

to purchase flood insurance.4

4 Rosenbaum, Walter A. and Boulware, Gary. “The Developmental and Environmental Impact of the National Flood Insurance 

Program: IA Summary Research Report.” October 2006.

MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 6-1

CONCLUSIONS 6

Conclusions

The conclusions presented in Chapter 6 are based on MAT field 

observations in the areas studied; evaluations of relevant codes, 

standards, and regulations; and meetings with state and local 

officials, contractors, and other interested parties. These conclusions 

are intended to assist the States of Iowa and Wisconsin as well as 

communities, businesses, and individuals in the reconstruction 

process; and to help reduce damage and other impacts from future 

floods. The report and its recommendations are also valuable to 

FEMA in considering changes or additional guidance that can 

make mitigation programs more effective.

The conclusions in this chapter are presented in four sections: Section 6.1 Building Performance, 

Section 6.2 Risk and Communication, Section 6.3 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs, and 

Section 6.4 Floodplain Management. These conclusions relate directly to recommendations presented in Chapter 7.

6
6-2 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1	 Building Performance

6.1.1	 Basements

The MAT observed several basement wall failures in older construction that lacked reinforced 

foundation walls to resist lateral loads caused by hydrostatic forces and saturated soils. These 

failures were primarily observed in pre-FIRM basement construction within the SFHA and older unreinforced foundation walls outside the SFHA. Ongoing renovations observed by the MAT 

indicated that foundation walls were being reinforced during repair. Due to the magnitude of 

flooding, several basements outside the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain were inundated; however, no observations of failure due to hydrostatic pressure were observed in areas that had newer 

construction practices with reinforced basement foundation walls. Finally, in the one community 

visited by the MAT with a basement exception under the 44 CFR §60.6(c) NFIP floodplain management criteria, the certified basements performed as designed.

6.1.2	 Foundations

The foundation failures studied by the MAT were primarily due to hydrostatic forces, but, in 

some cases, hydrodynamic forces were the cause. Hydrodynamic force failures occurred due to 

high-velocity floodwater acting directly upon the foundation. These failures were seen primarily 

in two places:

n Near stream channels where floodwater was exiting the channel and entering the 

floodplain at high velocity, such as at the outer side of stream bends

n Near failed levees that allowed concentrated floodwater to enter the floodplain at high 

velocity

Figure 6-1 illustrates a pre-FIRM foundation that was exposed to hydrodynamic forces as winddriven waves flowed from Lake Koshkonong to the Rock River. Figure 6-2 illustrates a residential 

building that was situated behind a levee and removed from its foundation by high-velocity floodwater when the protective structure was overtopped.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 6-3

CONCLUSIONS 6

Figure 6-1.

The foundation of this

residential building was

exposed to floodwater

flowing from Lake

Koshkonong to the

Rock River (Newville,

Wisconsin).

Figure 6-2.

This home was moved

several hundred feet away

from its foundation after

floodwater overtopped a

levee in Oakville, Iowa.
6-4 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1.3	 Openings

Throughout the field visits, the MAT observed a lack of openings in foundation walls, openings 

that were too high above grade, and openings that were obstructed. Because foundation walls can 

sustain damage or collapse due to hydrostatic loads, NFIP regulations require that enclosure walls 

contain openings that allow for the automatic entry and exit of floodwater. These openings are 

intended to allow floodwater to reach equal levels on each side of the wall, thereby lessening the 

probability of damage caused by a difference in hydrostatic loads on opposite sides of the wall. In 

some cases, openings that were designed in compliance with the NFIP and FEMA TB 1, Openings 

in Foundation Walls and Walls of Enclosures, became non-compliant during construction due to the 

addition of insulation, as shown in Figure 6-3.

Figure 6-3.

Example of a riverfront property with foundation

vent openings; the openings in the garage were

clear but those around the house were blocked

by insulation, eliminating the effectiveness of the

openings (Iowa City, Iowa).

6.1.4	 Damage Inspections

Following the floods, local building departments had difficulty keeping up with the high volume 

of required post-disaster damage assessments, including substantial damage inspections. Several 

communities put a temporary hold on issuing building permits until their workloads became more 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 6-5

CONCLUSIONS 6

manageable. To help manage their workload, communities trained personnel identified through 

local home builders associations to provide support with plan reviews and code enforcement. They 

also utilized emergency contracts to help complete residential substantial damage inspections. 

6.1.5	 Elevation

Although little new construction was observed in the floodplain, most of the buildings that were 

elevated above the BFE performed well and had limited damages. However, some that were elevated to the minimum requirements of the NFIP (i.e., at BFE) were still not high enough to avoid 

damage. Others were damaged because they were constructed pre-FIRM and had what, if constructed today, would be considered NFIP compliance issues, such as basements, utilities, or other 

functions located below the BFE. As expected, newer buildings performed best when elevated 

higher on proper foundations. Figure 6-4 is an example of a property constructed on fill so that 

the first floor elevation was 2 feet above the BFE. 

Figure 6-4.

This property was elevated

2 feet above the BFE

and sustained minimal

damages, whereas

the adjacent pre-FIRM

properties built at grade

had over 4 feet of flooding

(Milton, Wisconsin).

6.1.6	 Backflow Prevention

During the Midwest floods, backflow from sanitary sewers caused flooding in buildings, some of 

which could have been prevented with a backflow device. A backflow prevention device is a valve 

that is located in the sewer line that exits a building. This line is subject to possible flooding due 

to elevations of the finished floor of the building in relation to the sanitary sewer system elevations. The purpose of this valve is to prevent sewage and floodwater that enters the sanitary system 

from flowing back into the building through the sewer piping. Sewer flow into buildings occurs 

when wastewater flows increase and create sufficient pressure to cause sewage to flow backward 

into buildings via the laterals. Facilities within the building, such as toilets, floor drains, sinks, etc., 

overflow with untreated sewage. 
6-6 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

6 CONCLUSIONS

The elevation of the flooding in the building is directly related to the surface elevation of the 

wastewater and head in the sanitary sewer system. Sewage backflow can occur in buildings that may 

not be flooded by overland surface floodwater but are affected by the sanitary sewer system that 

has collected storm flows to the point that the pressure in the system pushes the flows back into 

the buildings. With backflow prevention devices, the pressure closes the devices and prevents sewage from entering the buildings, as observed in academic buildings at the University of Wisconsin 

at Oshkosh. In other areas visited by the MAT, flooding caused sewage from sanitary sewer lines 

to back up through drain pipes. These backups not only caused damage that is difficult to repair, 

but also created health hazards. 

6.1.7	 Critical Facilities

The Midwest floods illustrated the importance of properly locating critical facilities to reduce their 

flood risk. EO 11988 requires and FEMA 543 recommends that critical facilities either be located 

outside the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain or, if that is not possible, protected to the 0.2 

percent-annual-chance flood level. Several critical facilities that were located within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain and, in some cases, within the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain 

sustained considerable damage requiring several hundred million dollars in repairs and numerous months of closure. In addition, the damages impacted vital resources during response and 

recovery operations. The three facilities on Mays Island in Cedar Rapids are examples of facilities 

whose operations had to be relocated for several months due to flood damages. The floods also 

showed that critical facilities that are near, but not within, a 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain 

still face a residual flood risk, and their staff should plan accordingly. Mercy Medical Center, which 

is located adjacent to but not directly in the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, illustrates this 

residual risk to facilities. Damage to the hospital included flooding of an MRI machine, pharmaceutical robotics, communications equipment, and electrical distribution panels. 

Critical facilities that relocated contents or functions to higher levels during the 2008 floods successfully avoided damages to valuable property, as was the case at the University of Iowa library. 

Thorough planning and integrated design are essential to ensuring a critical facility remains functional during and after a disaster. Having detailed plans in place to vacate a correctional facility, 

hospital, or other critical facility is essential to properly evacuating to an offsite location. In addition, planning for necessary logistics such as food, water, and fuel are essential to keeping critical 

facilities functioning during a major disaster when resources can be limited.

To prepare for the floods, several critical facilities visited by the MAT monitored forecasts several 

times daily and prepared levels of protection based upon projected crests. Some were caught by 

surprise when the river crests exceeded forecasts. In Cedar Rapids, forecasts versus actual crests 

differed by more than 7 feet, and the County Sheriff’s Department had to evacuate inmates at 

the correctional facility on Mays Island during emergency conditions. Other jurisdictions staged 

pumps throughout low-lying communities to help limit sewer backups before they reached residences. In addition to protecting facilities with sandbags, staging equipment, and other measures, 

one wastewater treatment facility manager coordinated with the facility’s major users to reduce 

demand on the facility, which helped avoid discharge violations, associated fines, and loss of function for the plant. 
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 6-7

CONCLUSIONS 6

6.2	 Risk and Communication

Based upon numerous observations recorded by the MAT, the Midwest floods demonstrate that a 

significant number of property owners in the affected area did not fully understand and appreciate their level of flood risk. This has been attributed to a variety of reasons, including:

n Emphasis on the SFHA. Many property owners seemed to be misinformed or did not fully 

understand that they may be at risk of flooding even if they are not located within the 

SFHA. The areas of inundation associated with the 2008 Midwest floods illustrate that with 

certain conditions, such as above average soil saturation levels and large quantities of rain 

over a short period of time, floods can exceed the area delineated as the SFHA. 

n Levees and Flood Control Measures. Flood control measures, such as levees, dams, or 

floodwalls, protect areas that are naturally vulnerable to flooding. Many property owners 

did not understand the limit of protection provided by the flood control structure. 

Portions of communities visited by the MAT, such as Baraboo, Cedar Rapids, Coralville, 

and Oakville, were guarded by flood control structures, but the 2008 floods exceeded 

their design capacity and buildings thought to be protected were exposed to several feet of 

flooding. 

In addition to realizing their flood risk, everyone must comprehend how flood risk is calculated 

to fully understand and appreciate their level of flood risk. There are two components to flood 

risk: the probability of flooding and the consequences associated with that level of flooding. For 

example, the 2008 floods illustrated that structural flood protection measures can actually increase flood risk over time. Although properly constructed levees, floodwalls, and other structural 

flood protection measures decrease the probability of flooding for the area they are protecting, 

they indirectly support development in potentially at-risk areas, thus increasing the consequences 

if or when the structural flood protection measure is overtopped or fails. This is especially true 

when a structural flood protection measure becomes accredited for the NFIP, thus eliminating the 

requirement for flood insurance and floodplain regulations in the protected area. Any new development is then constructed as if a floodplain did not exist. 

Besides not understanding their flood risk, some property owners stated that they did not have 

adequate real-time information regarding the magnitude and size of the event. Local officials said 

there was confusion between correlating stage and estimated crest information with elevations in 

a FEMA FIS so the public can estimate how deep the water may get at their location. The flood 

stages were typically associated with a category of damage (minor, moderate, major, or record 

flooding), but there was not enough information to convert the stages to a known vertical datum 

and develop depth grids or inundation maps that could be used by the public and/or emergency 

management officials as recommended by FEMA 64, Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety. Based on field 

interviews and a rainfall-river forecast summit convened by the USACE, NWS, and USGS, the need 

for better coordination, communication, and collaboration was identified as a lesson learned from 

the 2008 floods.
6-8 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

6 CONCLUSIONS

6.3	 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs

6.3.1	 Acquisitions for the Purpose of Open Space

Based on FEMA mitigation grant programs data through July 31, 2008, more than 2,000, or 

approximately 97 percent, of the properties mitigated in Iowa and Wisconsin under FEMA’s mitigation grant programs involved acquiring and demolishing or relocating a structure out of the 

floodplain. The MAT visited several of these locations, most of which were inundated with several feet of floodwater. One example was the Monkey Run neighborhood of Columbus Junction, 

Iowa. Most of the homes in this neighborhood had been severely damaged by the 1993 floods, and 

nearly all structures had been bought and removed through FEMA mitigation grant programs. By 

2008, most of these properties had been converted into green space such as soccer and baseball 

fields. Despite flood depths of over 4 feet above the BFE, only 6 houses in the general vicinity of 

the acquisitions sustained damage in the June 2008 floods. Acquisitions, which are the most effective mitigation measure because they eliminate risk completely, have been a top mitigation priority 

for both states since 1993. 

Following the Midwest floods, homeowner attitudes toward acquisition varied. Some property 

owners who were substantially damaged expected to be bought out, whether they were in the 

floodplain or not. Others wanted to repair and remain where they were even if it meant rebuilding to a higher elevation and potentially facing the same level of risk in the future. Figures 6-5 and 

6-6 illustrate the effectiveness of acquisitions.

Figure 6-5.

This is the site of a FEMA-funded acquisition

project near Lake Koshkonong, Wisconsin; the

adjacent building had approximately 3 feet of

water throughout the living area.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 6-9

CONCLUSIONS 6

According to the State Hazard Mitigation Officers, Iowa and Wisconsin set acquisition projects as 

their top priority. Both states planned to invoke FEMA guidance that provides a categorical determination of cost-effectiveness for the purchase of substantially damaged properties located in a 

FEMA-delineated floodway or floodplain under the HMGP. 

6.4	 Floodplain Management

6.4.1	 Sources of Debris

The MAT observed activities/development in the floodplain that led to sources of debris as the 

floodwaters rose. Unanchored propane tanks, a traditional source of debris and hazard especially throughout the Midwest, were observed in various locations of the MAT investigations. These 

floating tanks become a hazard as they often leak and can explode with a spark or other source 

of ignition. Houseboats from Ellis Harbor in Cedar Rapids were a source of debris unique to this 

disaster. Both of these debris sources illustrate the need for floodplain managers and local zoning officials to be aware of daily activities in the floodplain and the potential sources of debris and 

high hazards they create. 

6.4.2	 Executive Order 11988

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management, which was issued in 1977, requires federal agencies to apply a decision-making process to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term 

adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid the 

direct or indirect support of floodplain development whenever there is a practicable alternative. 

Figure 6-6.

This park/open area was

once the site of Soldier’s

Grove, Wisconsin, but

in the early 1970s the

community began to

relocate after repetitive

flooding; although the

park was damaged, the

acquisition/relocation

program was successful

in avoiding damage

to residential and

commercial properties

that had been relocated.
6-10 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

6 CONCLUSIONS

If there is no practicable alternative, the federal agency must minimize any adverse impacts to 

life, property, and the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains. EO 11988 establishes the 

BFE as the minimum standard for all federal agencies. In addition, the eight-step decision-making process for complying with EO 11988 must be applied whenever there is a federal action in 

or affecting the floodplain. The 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain applies to action involving 

critical facilities, such as hospitals, emergency operation centers, and facilities that store hazardous materials. There continues to be a lack of adherence to the EO through federal funding and 

support of floodplain development. 

6.4.3	 Floodplain Management, Flood Insurance, and Mapping

FIRMs show the level of flood risk in certain areas and assign a flood zone designation to each 

area for flood insurance premium purposes. Properties that are in the SFHA are deemed high risk 

and are required to have flood insurance when property owners obtain a loan from a federally 

regulated lending institution or when they receive federal financial assistance for acquisition or 

construction purposes. For properties deemed to have moderate to low risk of flooding because 

they are outside the SFHA, the purchase of flood insurance is voluntary. 

Due to the magnitude of the Midwest flooding, the inundation extended beyond the limits of the 

SFHA in most communities visited by the MAT. Many property owners located outside of the SFHA 

that were, nevertheless, impacted by the Midwest floods had been told or wrongly concluded that 

they could not carry flood insurance. In addition, many property owners believed that the government would provide them with economic assistance despite their lack of insurance. Finally, several 

were unaware of provisions like the Increased Cost of Compliance coverage available to them under their policy. 

Interviews with several property owners and public officials revealed the need for maps to delineate the level and extent of inundation that would result if levees, floodwalls, and dams fail. 

Such information will not only help communicate the residual risk to buildings behind these 

flood-protection structures, but will also help local governments and facility managers plan 

when failure is imminent. 

Finally, as revealed by MAT interviews with homeowners within three CRS-participating communities, there was a general lack of knowledge about the CRS program. Floodplain managers 

interviewed were aware of the program; however, most homeowners had not heard of it. Most 

homeowners, both inside and outside communities participating in the CRS, were also unaware 

of the savings a community can receive for participating in the program.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 7-1

RECOMMENDATIONS 7

Recommendations

The recommendations in Chapter 7 are based on the observations 

and conclusions of the MAT, as discussed in the previous chapters 

of this report. They are intended to assist the States of Iowa and 

Wisconsin as well as communities, businesses, and individuals in 

the reconstruction process, and to help reduce future damage and 

other impacts from similar flood events. 

The recommendations parallel the topics discussed in Chapter 6. They are presented in four sections: Section 7.1 Building Performance, Section 7.2 Risk and Communication, Section 7.3 Hazard 

Mitigation Assistance Programs, and Section 7.4 Floodplain Management.

7.1	 Building Performance

7.1.1	 Basements

The primary observation related to basements was the failure of unreinforced walls.

7
7-2 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

Recommendation #1: NFIP regulations require residential property owners of substantially 

damaged buildings in the SFHA to remove their below-BFE basements. This requirement 

applies unless the community has obtained a basement exception from FEMA and the 

basement is certified by a design professional to resist flood loads. When repairing a nonsubstantially damaged building in the SFHA, serious consideration should be given to 

filling in the basement with sand, gravel, or other granular fill material up to a level that 

allows crawl space access only beneath the first floor. Cohesive soils such as clay may also 

be used, but granular soils are typically easier to work with when filling a basement. If a 

crawl space is created, permanent openings must be installed in accordance with FEMA 

NFIP TB 1 (August 2008).

Recommendation #2: When repairing a non-substantially damaged building and not filling 

the basement as discussed in Recommendation #1, all basement walls should be evaluated 

to determine if they have adequate reinforcement. Specifically, foundation walls constructed of unreinforced Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs) should be reinforced during 

repair. Other modifications like replacing unreinforced basement slabs can make a foundation system more resistant to flooding and should be considered. The owner should 

consult with a qualified structural engineer or architect in this regard. Consideration 

should also be given to permanently relocating utilities to a higher floor of the building, 

above expected flood levels, along with any vulnerable contents that cannot be evacuated 

easily and quickly. FEMA 348, Protecting Building Utilities from Flood Damage, provides retrofitting techniques for floodproofing existing utilities, including elevation/relocation 

and component protection. 

Recommendation #3: Homeowners should exercise extreme caution if their basement is 

flooded. Specifically, homeowners should not pump water out of a basement immediately following a flood. Even after the flood crest has passed and floodwaters have receded, 

homeowners should avoid removing water from a basement too quickly. Removing floodwater too quickly could cause basement wall and floor failure due to hydrostatic forces 

on the outside face of the wall. When removing/pumping water from a basement, homeowners should pump the water level down only approximately 2 feet, mark the level, 

and wait overnight. If the water level rises overnight, it is too early to drain the basement. 

When the water stops rising, the homeowner can continue pumping approximately 2 

feet of water at a time and again test the following day for rising water levels before 

pumping further. Although most property owners impacted by the 2008 floods knew not 

to pump out their basements, post-disaster advisories from FEMA, state, and local emergency management officials should alert homeowners on proper techniques and timing 

for pumping out basements after floodwater recedes. These advisories would be beneficial for all homeowners, but especially for those new to the area.

Recommendation #4: In communities in which a basement exception has been granted by 

FEMA, community officials must ensure that basements are constructed in accordance 

with 44 CFR §60.6(c). Basements in the SFHA should be allowed only in communities 

that meet the criteria, and the basements must be certified by a registered engineer or 

architect. 

7 RECOMMENDATIONS
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 7-3

7.1.2	 Foundations

The MAT observed some foundations that were exposed to high-velocity floodwater and hydrodynamic forces, as well as erosion and scour. In addition, the team observed connection failures 

between the foundation and the superstructure in a number of older pre-FIRM buildings. 

Recommendation #5: Communities should consider open foundation requirements for 

buildings that are constructed in potential high-velocity flow areas, such as those along 

river bends and immediately adjacent to the floodway. Open foundations are found on 

buildings that are built on piles, posts, piers, or columns with the building’s first floor elevated above the BFE. The pile, post, pier, or column embedment depth must be designed 

to account for the maximum potential erosion and scour depths, as determined by a design professional familiar with site specific building design issues, including flooding. In 

the limited areas visited by the MAT that were exposed to high-velocity floodwater, buildings elevated on open foundations performed better than buildings on closed foundations. 

Figure 7-1 is an example of a residential single-family house on an open foundation that 

was exposed to high-velocity floodwater.

Figure 7-1.

This residential building

on an open foundation

was able to withstand

the hydrodynamic forces;

note the opening in the

wall, which is indicative of

high-velocity floodwater

(Oakville, Iowa).

7.1.3	 Openings

Properly designed openings in foundation walls are intended to allow floodwater to reach equilibrium (equal levels) on both sides and reduce the probability of damage caused by hydrostatic 

loads. An absence of openings in the foundation walls of post-FIRM buildings was widespread in 

the communities visited by the MAT. In addition, in some cases where openings were present, the 

openings were obstructed or too high, thus reducing their effectiveness. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 7
7-4 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

Recommendation #6: Ensure openings in foundation walls are in accordance with FEMA TB 

1 (August 2008), which provides guidance on foundation openings. In addition, ensure 

that existing openings remain free of obstruction so that they serve their purpose. 

7.1.4	 Damage Inspections

Based upon interviews with local officials, several communities were overwhelmed by the volume 

of required inspections immediately following the Midwest floods of 2008. Jurisdictions had to 

complete substantial damage inspections throughout the SFHA, perform plan reviews and process permits throughout their community, and conduct code compliance inspections of repairs at 

a volume much larger than their normal workload. 

Recommendation #7: The City of Cedar Rapids and several other jurisdictions contacted local home builder and building official associations to help identify potential inspectors. 

They conducted training for identified candidates and used these individuals to help expand their building department workforce and complete required post-disaster inspections 

as well as plan reviews and code inspections during recovery. The MAT recommends communities consider this approach in their response and recovery planning. In addition, the 

MAT recommends FEMA develop standard operating procedures to support local jurisdictions with conducting Residential Substantial Damage Inspections and urge jurisdictions 

to adopt/enforce the latest building code.

Recommendation #8:With respect to substantial damage inspections, State NFIP Coordinators 

and communities should consider updating their floodplain management ordinances so 

their substantial damage and improvement criterion is cumulative, i.e., the sum of permitted repairs and improvements over the life of the property versus the current replacement 

value. This cumulative approach is recognized in the CRS and can help communities reduce their flood risk, especially those with pre-FIRM properties that sustain repetitive losses.

7.1.5	 Elevation

Several residential elevation projects, both existing and ongoing, were visited by the MAT; the 

overarching observation was that the higher the floor system (in some cases up to 4 feet above the 

BFE), the better the building performed. 

Recommendation #9: All new construction, substantial improvements, and repair of substantially damaged properties should follow flood damage-resistant criteria and be elevated 

above the BFE as specified by ASCE 24 (dwellings have 1 foot of freeboard and critical 

facilities have 2 to 3 feet; temporary facilities are allowed to be at the BFE). The ASCE 

24 design and elevation requirements apply to utilities and attendant equipment as well. 

Property owners and developers should weigh the potential savings from damages avoided 

against the upfront cost of elevating a few feet higher. The potential for lower flood insurance rates as a result of lower flood risk should also be taken into account. As highlighted 

in Chapter 5, homeowners who carry flood insurance and are substantially damaged can 

use Increased Cost of Compliance funds to help finance an elevation project. As previously 

stated in Recommendation #1, if the elevation project is a substantial improvement, the 

elevated property must be constructed on foundations with proper openings and without 

7 RECOMMENDATIONS
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 7-5

basements unless they are in compliance with 44 CFR §60.6(c). The most effective way 

for communities to utilize the flood damage-resistant design and construction criteria in 

ASCE 24 is to adopt and enforce the International Codes (IBC and IRC), which incorporate ASCE 24 by reference.

Recommendation #10: When elevating an existing structure, it is critical to ensure it is 

properly secured to the new foundation. The MAT observed several ongoing elevation 

projects where the foundation was being prepared with connections to properly secure the 

structure to the foundation. Proper connection between the elevated home and the new 

foundation should be required for all new construction and substantial improvements, in 

accordance with Chapter 4 of the IRC. Although most failures occurred in older buildings 

with unreinforced foundation walls, an emphasis on the importance of continuous load 

paths (specifically ensuring a connection with the foundation) needs to be maintained, especially given the number of potential elevation projects in the area. 

7.1.6	 Backflow Prevention

The lack of backflow prevention devices caused avoidable flooding in buildings, especially those 

outside the SFHA.

Recommendation #11: Backflow prevention valves should be installed, both within and outside the SFHA, on sanitary sewer and basement floor drain pipes; this will avoid sewer flow 

into a building when wastewater flow increases due to rainfall and surcharging events that 

create sufficient pressure to cause sewage to flow backwards. Backflow valves can utilize this 

backwards pressure to block drain pipes temporarily and prevent return flow. The types of 

valves range from check valves or backflow preventer valves, which open to allow flow out 

of the structure but close when the flow reverses, to gate valves, which are closed manually. 

These valves would not fully protect the facility from inundation by surface floodwater, but 

they would avert sewer water flowing into it via drain pipes. The owner should consult with 

a qualified engineer to determine the effectiveness of installing a backflow prevention valve 

in the building.

7.1.7	 Critical Facilities

In general, most critical facilities visited by the MAT performed well structurally, but the ability of 

the facility to remain operational after a major flood event was an issue in several cases. 

Recommendation #12: Critical facilities should be sited outside the 0.2-percent-annualchance floodplain. For federally funded activity involving critical facilities, these facilities 

should not be constructed without a thorough analysis under the provisions of EO 11988. 

If federal funds are provided, the facilities should be elevated above the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood elevation or in accordance with the freeboard requirements of ASCE 

24-05 and FEMA 543. In addition, critical contents, including public documents, electrical and mechanical equipment, and any critical or expensive equipment should be 

located above the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood level, in accordance with FEMA 543. 

As a short-term solution to reduce recovery time, existing facilities that cannot be relocated or elevated sufficiently should relocate critical functions/services, create a back-up, 

RECOMMENDATIONS 7
7-6 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

and/or floodproof equipment and interior finishes. The long-term strategy should be to 

relocate the facility entirely outside the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain.

Recommendation #13: Equipment and utilities should not be located at or below ground level 

in critical facilities in or near a floodplain. Electrical, mechanical, and security equipment 

should be located well above the BFE, in accordance with FEMA 543. Rooms where critical 

activities, such as operations, take place and that house patients who cannot be relocated 

quickly should also be located well above the BFE. Facility managers for critical facilities 

located in or near a floodplain should utilize the “Checklist for Building Vulnerability of 

Flood-Prone Critical Facilities” in FEMA 543 to help identify and address their flood susceptibility, as illustrated in Figures 7-2 and 7-3.

Figure 7-2.

The primary access road

to the Des Moines Water

Works is expected to

be under several feet of

water during a 1-percentannual-chance flood

(Des Moines, Iowa).

Figure 7-3.

The Des Moines Water

Works incorporated a

secondary access road

along the berm system

that protects the treatment

plant from flooding

(Des Moines, Iowa).

7 RECOMMENDATIONS
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 7-7

Recommendation #14: Critical facilities should have emergency operations plans and checklists in place for response to disasters. For example, a wastewater treatment facility should 

have contact information for its major customers as part of the facility’s emergency action 

plan so that customers can reduce inflows to the treatment facility, if necessary, in the event 

of a major flood. As another example, a correctional facility should have detailed plans outlining the evacuation of prisoners. 

Recommendation #15: Accurate flood predictions depend on many parameters including 

the flood characteristics of the stream and basin, the time of year, the pre-flood basin conditions, among others. Because of the variability of these parameters from flood to flood, 

accurate prediction of flood size and flood timing is not always possible. It is important 

for emergency managers, homeowners, critical facility managers, and others to take this 

into consideration when preparing for a flood. Critical facilities located in the floodplain 

should add 2 feet of freeboard to the estimated crest elevations when preparing for flood 

events, similar to the freeboard requirement of 2 feet for essential facilities in ASCE 24. 

Recommendation #16: Facility managers responsible for critical facilities should perform a 

comprehensive vulnerability assessment, including an evaluation that addresses the loss 

of municipal utilities (i.e., electrical power, water, sewer, and communications). In addition, critical facility managers should take preventive measures to ensure replacement 

equipment (e.g., pumps, generators, etc.) and essential supplies (e.g., fuel) are staged 

outside of the floodplain so that they are readily available and accessible following a flood. 

Equipment that cannot be relocated should be elevated or floodproofed so that repair 

times are reduced after floodwater recedes.

7.2	 Risk and Communication

Based on conversations with several floodplain managers in communities affected by the flooding, 

there is still a widespread misperception of flood risk among homeowners. The mitigation planning process, as required by the Stafford Act, is a good tool for this purpose. The process includes 

the development of comprehensive risk and capability assessments that can be used to guide decision making. The process also includes the participation of a wide range of stakeholders who play 

a role in setting goals and identifying mitigation actions.

Recommendation #17: Government, at all levels, must improve flood risk communication 

and education. Through a variety of outreach efforts implemented repeatedly, property 

owners should be made aware of their exposure to flood risk and of the magnitude of 

flooding at their general location when flooding is imminent. The FIRM could provide 

critical support for this outreach by showing more comprehensive flood risk information 

indicating residual flood risk outside the SFHA boundary. For example, it should show 

whether a levee/floodwall is or is not certified and the respective floodwater surface elevations so people understand the flood risk that exists even in areas “protected” by levees and 

floodwalls.

Recommendation #18: Development behind structural flood control measures, such as levees, floodwalls, or dams, should be controlled over the life of the flood control measure 

RECOMMENDATIONS 7
7-8 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

to ensure the development that occurs subsequent to the flood control measure does not 

actually increase an area’s flood risk. In addition, due to land development upstream and 

other hydrologic and hydraulic factors, the flood control measure may not provide the 

same of level of protection as when it was originally designed. Communities and developers protected by these structures should integrate redundant flood reduction measures to 

help limit damages when the design level of the flood control measure is exceeded. As illustrated by damages in communities like Oakville, Iowa, flood control measures may not 

provide complete protection from severe flooding. Redundant flood risk reduction measures include requiring that new construction be built to a certain elevation, requiring 

flood-resistant materials at lower elevations, and/or elevating critical interior functions 

above the BFE. Figure 7-1 is an example of a residential building behind a levee that was 

elevated on an open foundation and, as a result, suffered much less damage than buildings 

nearby that were not elevated and that were built on closed foundations. 

Recommendation #19: Programs like FEMA’s Flood Smart help educate the public on flood 

insurance and risk. Local floodplain managers should use Flood Smart and/or other 

means to communicate flood risk to property owners in their area, including those located 

outside the SFHA. Property owners share the responsibility of making themselves aware of 

their own flood risk. The property owners whose property flooded must realize that their 

property is in a floodplain and at risk of being flooded again. By rebuilding in that location, they are accepting flood risk and, ultimately, their responsibility to understand that 

risk and address it; this is especially important for those who were not substantially damaged and, thus, are not required to be brought into compliance with local flood damage 

reduction regulations that were not in effect at the time of the building’s original construction. Inundation maps illustrating the 0.2- and 1-percent-annual-chance floods, as well as 

the 2008 floods, are an effective way to communicate this risk. In addition, floodplain 

managers can use modeling software to help communicate flood risk prior to a flood and 

support decision making during response operations. As an example, the Johnson County 

Iowa Emergency Operations Center utilized HAZUS-MH to develop estimates of potential 

impacts to their infrastructure. Modeling software could also be used to help bring together critical flood information like the BFE, flood stage, crest, and peak discharge to help 

emergency managers facilitate response and recovery operations.

Recommendation #20: The MAT observed facilities with historic flood levels marked on walls 

as a reminder. Local floodplain managers should consider applying the same concept and 

mark traffic signal and sign posts with historic flood elevations or the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood elevations throughout the floodplain to help communicate the 

level of flood risk to the public. Also, to help educate residents about the residual risk associated with structural flood damage reduction measures, local officials should consider 

placing signs stating: “This area is a floodplain protected by levees or dams; these structures could overtop or fail resulting in flood depths of ‘X’ feet in this area.” This is similar 

to the requirements in Executive Order 11988, which requires federal facilities that have 

suffered flood damage or are located in an identified flood hazard area to delineate past 

and probable flood height to enhance public awareness of flood hazards. Figure 7-4 is an 

example of a wall marked with historic flood levels from 1903 to 1993.

7 RECOMMENDATIONS
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 7-9

7.3	 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs

The MAT visited the site of several FEMA-funded acquisition projects; these sites demonstrated the 

success of the acquisition strategy. 

Recommendation #21: The MAT recommends that acquisition be considered by states and 

communities with access to HMGP funds. Acquisition is the most effective mitigation measure, leaving no residual risk for property to be damaged. Following the 2008 floods, both 

Iowa and Wisconsin set acquisitions as their top priority for mitigation projects. It is important for floodplain managers and local government officials to take a holistic approach to 

acquisition projects; not only should the individual properties be removed from the floodplain, but also all associated infrastructure. By integrating hazard mitigation planning into 

recovery planning, floodplain managers can ensure that ongoing mitigation/reconstruction efforts are consistent with long-term plans. 

Figure 7-4.

The Des Moines Water Works has marked

historic flood levels at their pumping

facility for more than 90 years

(Des Moines, Iowa).

RECOMMENDATIONS 7
7-10 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

Recommendation #22: FEMA and other federal agencies should continue mitigation grant 

programs to support communities in pursuing opportunities to prevent future loss of life 

and property from hazard impacts. In addition, communities should identify and budget 

funding to finance mitigation projects internally. For example, the Milwaukee Metropolitan 

Sewage District Flood Management Program manages over $100 million annually for mitigation projects through funding collected from sewage disposal fees. Their projects include 

creating increased temporary water storage, improving the sewer system to avoid backups 

during floods, and acquiring developed property to convert to open space or undeveloped 

property to ensure it remains open. 

7.4	 Floodplain Management

7.4.1	 Sources of Debris

Whether it is unanchored fuel tanks, shipping containers from a port, or rail cars from a rail 

bridge, each disaster has its common and unique types of debris. The MAT observed various operations and activities that local floodplain managers should consider monitoring to help limit 

potential debris during a flood.

Recommendation #23: Floodplain managers and residents must be aware of potential sources 

of debris and ensure actions are taken to remove them from the floodplain or ensure they 

are properly anchored. Specifically, FEMA should continue education and outreach of its 

existing guidance for anchoring fuel tanks. When anchored in accordance with FEMA’s guidance, the tanks remain in place and are functional after floodwater recedes. In addition, local 

floodplain managers and residents should conduct assessments of their areas to secure or relocate unanchored items, such as supplies staged in a storage yard, recreational equipment, 

or patio furniture when floods are imminent. At the state level, NFIP coordinators should address limiting potential sources of debris in their model floodplain management ordinance.

7.4.2	 Executive Order 11988

EO 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid any adverse impacts on the floodplain through development when there is an alternative to locating or affecting the floodplain. 

Recommendation #24: FEMA and other federal agencies should ensure EO 11988 is being 

properly implemented when funding recovery projects to help reduce future flood damages. Specifically, critical facilities should be relocated outside the 0.2-percent-annual-chance 

floodplain whenever possible. 

7.4.3	 Floodplain Management, Flood Insurance, and Mapping

A FIRM identifies the special flood hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to a community, and helps lenders determine if a property is required to carry flood insurance. In addition, 

a FIRM commonly serves as a local floodplain manager’s primary resource to communicate flood 

risk to the public.

7 RECOMMENDATIONS
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN 7-11

Recommendation #25: Local jurisdictions should continue to integrate freeboard requirements into their floodplain management ordinances and require homeowners to build 

above the BFE. In urban areas, jurisdictions may wish to consider adopting the 0.2-percentannual-chance elevation as the design flood elevation because, as development increases, 

so does the community’s exposure and flood risk. Communities should strengthen floodplain management regulations to require new construction to be elevated to at least 1 foot 

above the BFE and follow flood-resistant design and construction criteria as outlined in 

ASCE 24. Several ongoing elevation projects observed by the MAT were designed to be 3 

feet above the BFE. This design decision was based upon experiences from recent events as 

well as knowledge of neighboring properties that were not elevated high enough to avoid 

flooding during events that exceeded the 1-percent-annual-chance flood (see Figure 7-5). 

Figure 7-5.

The property on the left

was elevated to the BFE

after flooding in 1993 (no

freeboard) and flooded

in 2008; after the 2008

floods, the homeowner

of the ongoing elevation

project on the right

decided to raise his home

1 foot above the high

water mark for the 2008

floods, which is almost 4

feet above the BFE (Iowa

City, Iowa).

Recommendation #26: FIRMs should continue to delineate the current flood zones for the 

purposes of designating risk levels and setting flood insurance rates. However, communities 

should understand the flooding hazards of the entire watershed area. The 2008 Midwest 

floods illustrated that the 1-percent-annual-chance flood is not the limit of the floodplain; 

most communities visited by the MAT experienced a flood that exceeded the SFHA boundaries. A property owner located just outside the SFHA or in an inundation area protected 

by a certified levee should consider taking preventive measures to reduce flood damages; 

floodwater may not stop at the SFHA boundary and a structural flood control measure may 

be overtopped or otherwise fail. Education and outreach material should emphasize that 

the NFIP guidelines are the minimum requirements and that designers, planners, builders, 

and property owners should take additional measures in floodprone areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS 7
7-12 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

Recommendation #27: Through the map modernization initiative, local communities receive complete digital delivery of their FIRM. This digital delivery enables communities 

to overlay their flood hazards on their built environment in the geographic information 

system (GIS) platform. Taking full advantage of this can help communities communicate 

flood risk more effectively and better plan for and prioritize mitigation projects. Most of 

all, it enables communities to use the information to conduct stronger risk assessments 

and more accurately identify flood vulnerabilities throughout their community. The MAT 

recommends that the digital delivery include a depth and velocity grid that can be used 

to determine the extent and dynamics of flooding throughout the floodplain, identify 

more detailed levels of risk within the SFHA, help the community plan with their built environment information, and possibly even support design professionals with deciding on 

a foundation design. To communicate this risk, local floodplain managers may consider 

using different colors to indicate different levels of flooding in and outside of the SFHA. 

Note: Several of the rapid recovery maps (including those for Mahaska County, Iowa) developed under Disaster Number 1763 included digital delivery with a depth grid.

Recommendation #28: Ensure education and outreach materials reach property owners outside the SFHA, so they understand that flood insurance can be purchased anywhere within 

a community or legal entity that satisfactorily participates in the NFIP; this material should 

especially be sent to those property owners that are protected by a levee. State and local officials should promote the purchase of flood insurance as well.

Recommendation #29: The MAT recommends that federal, state, and local officials increase 

their emphasis on Increased Cost of Compliance coverage after a flood through outreach 

materials to homeowners and/or NFIP insurance agent workshops. In addition, NFIP 

workshops for insurance agents should stress the agents’ role in informing homeowners of 

the importance of carrying flood insurance even if they are outside the SFHA, regardless 

of whether or not they obtained a loan from a federally regulated lending institution for 

their property.

Recommendation #30: Three of the communities visited by the MAT participated in the CRS 

program. However, not many homeowners were aware of the program or that a community’s efforts beyond the NFIP minimum standards could reduce flood insurance premiums 

for the community’s property owners by 5 to 45 percent. Through education and outreach, 

federal, state, and local officials should promote the CRS program so that it is considered 

by potential homeowners or renters in the area in the same way potential buyers look for 

strong school districts and competitive property taxes. 

7 RECOMMENDATIONS
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN A-1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A

Acknowledgments

The Federal Emergency Management Agency would like to 

acknowledge the contributions of the following persons to the 

Mitigation Assessment Team study of the areas affected by the 

Midwest floods of 2008:

A

Dean Archer

City of Cedar Rapids Public Works, Cedar Rapids, IA

Paul Baran

Adjusters International, Utica, NY

Roger Benson

Natural Hazard Program Specialist, FEMA Region VII, Kansas City, MO

Eugene Boro

Baraboo Utility Plant, Baraboo, WI

Greg Buelow

Fire/Public Safety Coordinator, City of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA

Russ Camp

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Manager, City of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA

Bill Cappuccio

Local Floodplain Management Ordinances & National Flood Insurance Program Coordination, 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA
A-2 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

A ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Bill Coulbourne, P.E.

Director, Wind and Flood Hazard Mitigation, Applied Technology Council, 

Rehoboth Beach, DE

Bruce Corsaro

Adjusters International, Utica, NY

Cynthia J. Crecelius, CFM

CC Consults, Westerville, OH 

Gary Creed

University of Iowa Facilities Management Department, Iowa City, IA

Steve Donovan

President of the Village of La Farge, La Farge, WI

Eugene Doro

Foreman, City of Baraboo Wastewater Department, Baraboo, WI

Dave Dvorak 

City of Cedar Rapids Community Schools, Cedar Rapids, IA

Diane Earl

Mitigation Specialist, FEMA Region IX, Oakland, CA

Thomas Emrick

Chief, City of Fort Atkinson Fire Department, Fort Atkinson, WI

David Fila

Public Assistance Coordinator (PAC) Crew Leader for Educational Facilities 

(Iowa – Statewide), FEMA, Cedar Rapids, IA

Lois Forster 

Program Specialist, FEMA Floodplain Management Branch, Washington, DC

Robert Franke

Civil Engineer, FEMA Region VII, Kansas City, MO

Stephen Freese

Executive Director, Circus World Museum, Baraboo, WI

Roxanne Gray

Wisconsin State Hazard Mitigation Officer, Madison, WI 

Greg Hahn

Fire Chief, La Valle Fire Department, La Valle, WI

Vern Harper

Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division Public Assistance, 

Des Moines, IA
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN A-3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A

Gary Heinrichs

Floodplain Planning Program Manager, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

Madison, WI

Chuck Hermes

Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Oshkosh, WI

John Ingargiola

Civil Engineer, FEMA Building Science Branch, Washington, DC

Randy Johnson

Director of Buildings and Grounds, School District of Reedsburg, Reedsburg, WI

Randy Johnston 

Director of Buildings and Grounds, Oshkosh Area School District Maintenance Department, Oshkosh, WI

Brian Juarez

Building Inspector, City of Fort Atkinson Building Department, Fort Atkinson, WI

Mike Kelly

Superintendent, City of Jefferson Wastewater Treatment Facility, Jefferson, WI

Art Kennan

District Administrator, Wonewoc-Center Schools, Wonewoc, WI

Captain Bruce Kern

Cedar Rapids Police Department, Cedar Rapids, IA

Tony Klas 

Maintenance, Cedar Rapids City Hall/Veterans Memorial Building, Cedar Rapids, IA

Susan Klatt

Director of Financial Management, University of Iowa Business Office, Iowa City, IA 

Terry Kramer 

Utility Superintendent, City of Baraboo, Baraboo, WI

Ed Laatsch 

Building Science Branch Chief, FEMA Building Science Branch, Washington, DC

Rod Lehnertz 

Director of Design and Construction, University of Iowa Planning, Design, and Construction, 

Iowa City, IA

Kenneth Lloyd

Senior Engineer, University of Iowa Facilities Management, Iowa City, IA

Lynn Miller 

Director, Finance & Organizational Services, Cedar Falls Utility, Cedar Falls, IA

Donna Peary

University of Iowa Risk Management Department, Iowa City, IA
A-4 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

A ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

John Plisich 

Civil Engineer, FEMA Region IV, Atlanta, GA

Lieutenant Jerry Potter 

Cedar Rapids Police Department, Cedar Rapids, IA

Bob Redelings

Portage Wastewater Treatment Plant, Portage, WI

Phillip Risseeuw

City Clerk and Treasurer, City of Darlington, Darlington, WI

Ann Rosenthal

Senior Engineer, University of Iowa Facilities Management, Iowa City, IA

David Rusley

Manager of Engineering Services, Cedar Falls Utility, Cedar Falls, IA

Captain Steve Skulke 

Linn County Sheriff’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA

Jennifer Sparks 

Deputy Clerk, Building Department, La Porte City, La Porte, IA

Alan Springett

Physical Scientist, FEMA Building Science Branch, Washington, DC

Dennis Sullivan

Mercy Medical Center, Cedar Rapids, IA

Paul Tertell, PE

Civil Engineer, FEMA Building Science Branch, Washington, DC

Lee Traeger

Engineer, FEMA Region V, Chicago, IL

Dev Traver 

General Manager, Tyson Foods, Inc., Jefferson, WI

Robert Watson

Floodplain Engineer, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI

Mike Williams 

Milwaukee Water Works, Menomonee Pump Station, Milwaukee, WI

Bob Wright

Adjustors International, Utica, NY

Steven Zibell

Public Works Director/City Engineer, City of Reedsburg, Reedsburg, WI
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN B-1

REFERENCES B

BReferences

American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2003. Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, 

ACI 530-05. Farmington Hills, MI.

American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2008. Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, 

ACI 530-08. Farmington Hills, MI.

American Institutes for Research, 2006. Evaluation of the National Flood Insurance Program’s 

Building Standards. Washington, DC, September 2006.

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Civil Engineers 

(ASCE), 1988. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ANSI/ASCE Standard 7-88.

Washington, DC (ANSI) and Reston, VA (ASCE).

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 1998. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other 

Structures, ASCE Standard 7-98. Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2005a. Flood Resistant Design and Construction, ASCE

Standard ASCE 24. Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2005b. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other 

Structures, ASCE/SEI Standard 7-05. Reston, VA.

Brick Industry Association (BIA), 1991. Anchored Brick Veneer Wood Frame Construction, 

Technical Notes 28. Reston, VA.

Brick Industry Association (BIA), 2002. Anchored Brick Veneer, Wood Frame Construction, 

Technical Notes 28. Reston, VA.
B-2 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

B REFERENCES

The Center for Urban & Regional Studies , University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2003.

Implementing Floodplain Land Acquisition Programs in Urban Localities. Chapel Hill, NC, December

2003. http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~james.c.fraser/publications/Floddplain%20Project%20

Report.Final.pdf.

“Climate of 2008 Midwestern U.S. Flood Overview,” National Climatic Data Center,  July 2008.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/flood08.html.

City of Cedar Rapids , Iowa, 2007. “Cedar Rapids Downtown Area Plan Open House Presentation

Boards.” Cedar Rapids, IA, November 2007.

City of Cedar Rapids , Iowa, 2009. Flood Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. Cedar Rapids, IA,

March 2009. http://www.corridorrecovery.org/city/plan.

City of Cedar Rapids Corridor Recovery , Iowa, April 2009. 

http://www.corridorrecovery.org/stats.asp.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , Department of Community and Economic Development, 2001.

Technical Information on Floodplain Management, Planning Series #5. Harrisburg, PA.

http://www.newpa.com/get-local-gov-support/publications/download.aspx?id=340. 

Congressional Research Service , 2009. Federal Flood Policy Challenges: Lessons from the 2008 Midwest 

Flood, 7-5700. Washington, DC, February 2009. 

Federal Alliance for Safe Homes , FLASH, [tba]. Contractors Field Manual.

Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS), 2006. Water Damage Prevention for Commercial 

Buildings. Tampa, FL.

Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS), 2007. Fortified for Safer Living Builder’s Guide.

Tampa, FL.

Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee , 1994. Sharing the Challenge:

Floodplain Management into the 21st Century (referred to as the “Galloway Report”).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1994.

Interagency Levee Task Force “U.S. Geological Survey—Rainfall-River Forecast Summit” in

Raising the Standard, Oct./Nov. 2008 newsletter.

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ILTF/docs/ILTF_Newsletter_OctNov_08.pdf.

International Code Council (ICC), 2000a. International Building Code, 2000 edition.

Washington, DC.

International Code Council (ICC), 2000b. International Residential Code, 2000 edition.

Washington, DC.

International Code Council (ICC), 2003a. International Building Code, 2003 edition.

Washington, DC.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN B-3

REFERENCES B

International Code Council (ICC), 2003b. International Residential Code, 2003 edition.

Washington, DC.

International Code Council (ICC), 2006a. International Building Code, 2006 edition.

Washington, DC.

International Code Council (ICC), 2006b. International Residential Code, 2006 edition.

Washington, DC.

Iowa State University Extension , 2008. Economic Impacts of the 2008 Floods in Iowa, June 2008.

http://www.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_12954.pdf.

KCRG TV9 News , 2008. Flood of 2008 Video Archive and Flood Timeline. Cedar Rapids, IA.

http://www.kcrg.com/floodwatch (accessed March 2009).

Mattoon , Rick. “Assessing the Midwest Floods of 2008 (and 1993),” Federal Reserve Bank of

Chicago, July 2008.

http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/archives/2008/07/mattoon_flood_b.html.

“Midwest Overview,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Midwest 

Regional Climate Center, June 2008.

http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/0806/climwatch.0806.htm.

Montgomery , Malcolm K. and Lively, Francis P., “The Rising Tide – Flood Insurance in an Active

Hurricane Era,” The Real Estate Finance Journal. Winter 2006. 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 1999. National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, 1999

edition. Quincy, MA.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 2003. Building Construction and Safety Code, NFPA

5000, 2003 edition. Quincy, MA.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 2005a. Model Manufactured Home Installation 

Standard, NFPA 225. Quincy, MA.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 2005b. Standard for Fire Safety Criteria for 

Manufactured Home Installations, Sites and Communities, NFPA 501A. Quincy, MA.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 2005c. Standard on Manufactured Housing, 

NFPA 501. Quincy, MA.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 2006. Building Construction and Safety Code, 

NFPA 5000, 2006 edition. Quincy, MA.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 2009. Model Manufactured Home Installation 

Standard, NFPA 225, 2009 edition. Quincy, MA.

National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), 2009. “Whole Building Design Guide.” 

http://www.wbdg.org/design/historic_pres.php.
B-4 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

B REFERENCES

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2008. “Current Major Flooding in

U.S. a Sign of Things to Come,” March 2008.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080320_springoutlook.html.

Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI), 2005. Recommended Practices for Installation of Underground 

Liquid Storage Systems, (RP100-05). Tulsa, OK.

Rebuild Iowa Office , 2008. Agriculture and Environment Task Force Report To the Rebuild Iowa

Advisory Commission, August 2008.

http://www.rio.iowa.gov/task_forces/ag-enviro/ag-enviro_report_08-2008.pdf.

Rebuild Iowa Office , 2009. Facts and Figures, April 15, 2009. 

http://www.rio.iowa.gov/resources/facts.html.

Rosenbaum , Walter A. and Boulware, Gary., “The Developmental and Environmental Impact of

the National Flood Insurance Program: IA Summary Research Report,” October 2006.

University of Iowa. “University of Iowa Flood Action Plans, January 2009.”

http://www.uiowa.edu/floodrecovery/recovery-reports/action-plan-jan-09.pdf.

University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. “Chancellor’s Welcome.”

http://www.uwosh.edu/chancellor/welcome.php (accessed August 2008).

URS Corporation , 2008. “Midwest Floods of 2008 High Water Mark Collection in Iowa.”

Prepared for FEMA, August 2008.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development , 2005. Manufactured Home Construction and 

Safety Standards, Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 3280.

U.S. Department of Justice , National Institute of Corrections, 1996. Critical Analysis of Emergency 

Preparedness Self-Audit Materials.

http://www.nicic.org/Library/013223.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2008. 2008 Iowa Flood Information Page, June Flood Summary.

Reston, VA.

http://ia.water.usgs.gov/flood08/ (accessed March 2009).

U.S. Secretary of the Interior , 2008a. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/rhb/stand.htm. 

U.S. Secretary of the Interior , 2008b. The Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Rehabilitating 

Historic Buildings.

http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/rhb/guide.htm. 

WCLO News , 2008. Story Archive for June 2008. Janesville, WI.

http://wclo.com/news/2008/jun/ (accessed March 2009).
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN B-5

REFERENCES B

Wisconsin Department of Commerce. Uniform Dwelling Code (Comm 20-25).

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/comm/comm020.html.

Wisconsin Department of Commerce. Wisconsin Commercial Building Code (Comm 60-66). 

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/comm/comm060.html.

Wisconsin Recovery Task Force , 2008. Report to the Governor on June 2008 Severe Storms, Tornadoes 

and Flooding (FEMA-1768-DR-WI). November 2008.

FEMA Publications Referenced in This Report

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1985. Manufactured Home Installation in Flood 

Hazard Areas, FEMA 85. Washington, DC, September 1985.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Red Cross , 1992. Repairing 

Your Flooded Home, FEMA 234/ARC 4476. Washington, DC, August 1992.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1996. Addressing Your Community’s Flood 

Problems, FEMA 309. Washington, DC, June 1996.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1998. Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting, FEMA 

312. Washington, DC, June 1998.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1999. Protecting Building Utilities from Flood 

Damage, FEMA 348. Washington, DC, November 1999.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2003. Interim Guidance for State and Local 

Officials - Increased Cost of Compliance Coverage, FEMA 301. Washington, DC, September 2003.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000. Above the Flood: Elevating Your Floodprone 

House, FEMA 347. Washington, DC, May 2000.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2001. Understanding Your Risks: Identifying 

Hazards and Estimating Losses, FEMA 386-2. Washington, DC, August 2001.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2002a. Getting Started: Building Support for 

Mitigation Planning, FEMA 386-1. Washington, DC, September 2002.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2002b. Integrating Manmade Hazards into 

Mitigation Planning, FEMA 386-7. Washington, DC, September 2002.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2003a. Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying 

Mitigation Actions and Implementing Strategies, FEMA 386-3. Washington, DC, April 2003.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2003b. Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the 

Hazard Mitigation Plan, FEMA 386-4. Washington, DC, August 2003.
B-6 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

B REFERENCES

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2004a. Design Guide for Improving School Safety in 

Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds, FEMA 424. Washington, DC, January 2004.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2004b. Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: 

Emergency Action Planning for Dam Owners, FEMA 64. Washington, DC, April 2004.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2005. Integrating Historic Property and Cultural 

Resource Considerations into Hazard Mitigation Planning, FEMA 386-6. Washington, DC, May 2005.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2006a. Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation 

Planning, FEMA 386-8. Washington, DC, August 2006.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2006b. Using the Hazard Mitigation Plan to 

Prepare Successful Mitigation Projects, FEMA 386-9. Washington, DC, August 2008.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2006c. “Designing for Flood Levels Above

the BFE,” Hurricane Katrina Recovery Advisory 8, Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast: Building 

Performance Observations, Recommendations, and Technical Guidance, FEMA 549, Appendix E.

Washington, DC, July 2006.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2007a. Property Acquisition Handbook for Local 

Communities, FEMA 317. Washington, DC, September 2007.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2007b. Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322.

Washington, DC, June 2007.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2007c. Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation 

Planning, FEMA 386-5. Washington, DC, May 2007.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2007d. Design Guide for Improving Critical 

Facility Safety from Flooding and High Winds: Providing Protection to People and Buildings, FEMA 543.

Washington, DC, January 2007.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2007e. Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures 

for Floodprone Structures, FEMA 551. Washington, DC, March 2007.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2007f. Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety 

in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds: Providing Protection to People and Buildings, FEMA 577.

Washington, DC, June 2007.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2008. Reducing Flood Losses Through the 

International Codes: Meeting the Requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program, FEMA

9-0372, Third Edition. Washington, DC, December 2007.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN B-7

REFERENCES B

FEMA Technical Bulletins Referenced in This Report

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1993a. Elevator Installation for Buildings

Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas in accordance with the National Flood Insurance

Program, FIA-TB-4. Washington, DC, April 1993.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1993b. Below-Grade Parking Requirements 

for Buildings Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas in accordance with the National Flood Insurance 

Program, FIA-TB-6. Washington, DC, April 1993.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1993c. Wet Floodproofing Requirements for 

Structures Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas in accordance with the National Flood Insurance 

Program, FIA-TB-7. Washington, DC, December 1993.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2001. Ensuring That Structures Built on Fill in or 

Near Special Flood Hazard Areas Are Reasonably Safe from Flooding, FIA-TB-10. Washington, DC, May

2001.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2008a. Openings in Foundation Walls and Walls of 

Enclosures Below Elevated Buildings in Special Flood Hazard Areas in accordance with the National Flood 

Insurance Program, TB 1-08. Washington, DC, August 2008.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2008b. Flood Damage-Resistant Materials 

Requirements for Buildings Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas in accordance with the National Flood 

Insurance Program, TB 2-08. Washington, DC, August 2008.

MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN C-1

ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS C

Acronyms and Glossary Cof Terms 

Acronyms

A

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers 

B

BFE Base Flood Elevation 

C

CBC Commercial Building Code

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second

CIS Community Information System

CMU concrete masonry unit
C-2 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

C ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS

CRPD Cedar Rapids Police Department

CRS Community Rating System

CT Computed Tomography

D

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DMA 2000 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 

DNR Department of Natural Resources

E

EO Executive Order

EOC Emergency Operations Center

ESC Education Services Center

F

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map 

FIS Flood Insurance Study 

FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance

FY Fiscal Year

G

GIS geographic information system

H

HMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance

HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN C-3

ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS C

I

IATL Iowa Advanced Technology Labs

IBC International Building Code

IBHS Institute for Business and Home Safety

ICC International Code Council 

I-Codes IBC, IRC, and the IEBC

IEBC International Existing Building Code 

IMU Iowa Memorial Union

IRC International Residential Code

J

JFO Joint Field Office

L

LOMR Letter of Map Revision 

LOMR-F Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill

M

MAT Mitigation Assessment Team

MGD million gallons per day 

MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging

N

NFIA National Flood Insurance Act

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NWS National Weather Service 
C-4 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

C ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS

O

ONA Other Needs Assistance

P

PA Public Assistance

PDA Preliminary Damage Assessment

PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation

PNP Private Nonprofit

R

RFC Repetitive Flood Claims

RSDE Residential Substantial Damage Estimate

S

SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area

SOI Secretary of the Interior

SRL Severe Repetitive Loss

T

TB Technical Bulletin

U

UBC Uniform Building Code

UDC Uniform Dwelling Code

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN C-5

ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS C

UST underground storage tank

UW University of Wisconsin

V

VFD Variable Frequency Drives

W

WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility

Glossary of Terms

100-year flood – The flood elevation that has a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded 

each year. 

500-year flood – The flood elevation that has a 0.2-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded 

each year.

ASCE 7 – National design standard issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum 

Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, which gives current requirements for dead, live, 

soil, flood, wind, snow, rain, ice, and earthquake loads, and their combinations, suitable for 

inclusion in building codes and other documents.

ASCE 24 – National design standard issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers, Flood 

Resistant Design and Construction, which outlines the requirements for flood resistant design and 

construction of structures in flood hazard areas.

Base Flood Elevation (BFE) – Elevation of the 1-percent-annual-chance flood. This elevation is 

the basis of the insurance and floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.

Berm – A small levee, typically built from fill dirt.

Capillary action – Commonly referred to as “wicking,” capillary action is the process by which 

water in liquid form climbs upward through materials in opposition to the force of gravity.

cfs – Cubic feet per second, the unit by which discharges are measured (a cubic foot of water is 

about 7.5 gallons). 

Closed foundation – Structure foundation that is enclosed on all sides (e.g., stem wall, basement, 

or crawl space) that is permanently closed to floodwaters.
C-6 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

C ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Continuous load path – A load path is the route taken by a force as it makes its way through a 

structure. When a building has a continuous load path, the force is eventually transferred to and 

resisted by the ground. A continuous load path usually requires the use of metal connectors, 

fasteners (such as nails and screws), and strong wall design.

Corbel – a piece of stone or extension of concrete jutting out of a wall to carry any 

superincumbent weight.

Critical and essential facilities – Facilities that, if damaged, would present an immediate threat 

to life, public health, and safety as defined by ASCE 7. Critical and essential facilities include, but 

are not limited to, hospitals, emergency operations centers, water systems, and utilities.

Crest – The peak stage or elevation reached or expected to be reached by the floodwaters of a 

specific flood at a given location.

Dam – Any artificial barrier that impounds or diverts water and that: (1) is 25 feet or more in 

height from the natural bed of the stream or watercourse measured at the downstream toe of the 

barrier or from the lowest elevation of the outside limit of the barrier if it is not across a stream 

channel or watercourse, to the maximum water storage elevation or (2) has an impounding 

capacity at maximum water storage elevation of 50 acre-feet or more.

Design flood event – The greater of the following two flood events: (1) the base flood, affecting 

those areas identified as SFHAs on a community’s FIRM; or (2) the flood corresponding to the 

area designated as a flood hazard area on a community’s flood hazard map or otherwise legally 

designated.

Erosion – Process by which floodwaters lower the ground surface in an area by removing upper 

layers of soil.

Executive Order 11988 – Requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and 

short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and 

to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable 

alternative. In accomplishing this objective, “each agency shall provide leadership and shall 

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, 

health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood 

plains in carrying out its responsibilities” for the following actions: (1) acquiring, managing, and 

disposing of federal lands and facilities; (2) providing federally-undertaken, financed, or assisted 

construction and improvements; and (3) conducting federal activities and programs affecting 

land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and 

licensing activities.

Fetch – The distance along open water or land over which the wind blows. 

Floodborne debris impact – Floodwater moving at a moderate or high velocity can carry 

floodborne debris that can impact buildings and damage walls and foundations.

Floodway fringe – The portion of the SFHA that is outside of the floodway.

Flood gauge/gage – An instrument that measures/monitors the height of floodwater at a given 

location.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN C-7

ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS C

Flood Insurance Rate Map – An official map of a community, on which FEMA has delineated 

both the SFHAs and the risk premium zones applicable to the community.

Floodwall – A long, narrow concrete or masonry wall built to protect land from flooding.

Floodway – The channel of a river or other watercourse and that portion of the adjacent 

floodplain that must remain unobstructed to permit passage of the base flood without cumulatively 

increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height (usually 1 foot).

Freeboard – The height above the base flood added to a structure to reduce the potential for 

flooding. The increased elevation of a building above the minimum design flood level to provide 

additional protection for flood levels higher than the 1-percent-annual-chance flood level and to 

compensate for inherent inaccuracies in flood hazard mapping.

High velocity flow – Typically comprised of floodwaters moving faster than 5 feet per second.

Hydrodynamic force – The force of moving water, including the impact of debris and high 

velocities. 

Hydrostatic force – The pressure put on a structure by the weight of standing water. The deeper 

the water, the more it weighs and the greater the hydrostatic pressure.

Levee – A manmade structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed in 

accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control, or divert the flow of water so as 

to provide protection from temporary flooding.

Loads – Forces or other actions that result from the weight of all building materials, occupants, 

and their possessions; environmental effects; differential movement; and restrained dimensional 

changes. Permanent loads are those in which variations over time are rare or of small magnitude. 

All other loads are variable loads.

Open foundation – Structure foundation elevated on piles, walls, or other system that is 

permanently open to floodwaters.

Performance-Based Design – A design methodology that allows a designer to work with an owner 

to achieve an acceptable level of risk.

Pier foundation – Vertical support member of masonry or cast-in-place concrete that is 

designed and constructed to function as an independent structural element in supporting 

and transmitting both building loads and environmental loads to the ground. Typical pier 

foundations are constructed on footings.

Reinforced concrete – Concrete with steel mesh or bars embedded in it to increase its tensile 

strength.

Riverine – Of or produced by a river. Riverine floodplains have readily identifiable channels. 

Seepage – The process of floodwater flowing slowly into or out of something through small holes.

Slab-on-grade foundation – Type of foundation in which the lowest floor of the house is formed 

by a concrete slab that sits directly on the ground. 

Special Flood Hazard Area – Portion of the floodplain subject to inundation by the base flood.
C-8 MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN

C ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Stafford Act – Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, PL 100-707, 

signed into law November 23, 1988; amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, PL 93-288. This Act 

constitutes the statutory authority for most federal disaster response activities especially as they 

pertain to FEMA and FEMA programs.

Steel moment frame – In steel moment frame buildings, the ends of the beams are rigidly joined 

to the columns so that the buildings can resist lateral wind forces without the assistance of 

additional braces or walls.

Stem wall foundation – A type of foundation that uses masonry block and is reinforced with 

steel and concrete. The wall is constructed on a concrete footing, back-filled with dirt, and 

compacted, and the slab is then poured on top.

Stillwater – A rise in the normal level of a water body.
MITIGATION ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN D-1

MIDWEST FLOODS OF 2008 IN IOWA AND WISCONSIN RECOVERY ADVISORIES D

Midwest Floods Recovery 

Advisories

FEMA has prepared Recovery Advisories that present guidance for design, construction, and 

restoration of buildings in areas subject to riverine flooding. To date, two advisories have been 

prepared and are included in this appendix:

n Considerations for Rebuilding Your Flood-Damaged House

n Design Considerations for Improving Critical Facility Functionality During Flood Events

These Advisories are also available online at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3824 

where future Advisories will also be posted. 

D

MIDWEST FLOODS RECOVERY ADVISORY

Considerations for Rebuilding Your Flood-Damaged House October 2009 Page 1 of 4

Considerations for Rebuilding

Your Flood-Damaged 

House

Purpose: The Midwest floods of 2008 caused riverine flooding, sanitary sewer back up, levee/floodwall 

failure or overtopping, and/or rising lake levels, resulting in upwards of $6 billion in damage. Homeowners 

impacted by the floods are now faced with fundamental rebuilding decisions. This advisory provides 

information to assist with rebuilding decisions in the aftermath of the 2008 Midwest Floods, as well as any 

future flood events.

Background:

n The U.S. Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) with the passage of the 

National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The NFIP is a federal program enabling residents in participating 

communities to purchase flood insurance. Currently 20,000+ communities participate in the NFIP. 

n When a community chooses to join the NFIP, it must adopt and 

enforce minimum floodplain management standards. The floodplain 

management requirements are designed to prevent new development 

from increasing the flood risk and to reduce flood damages to new 

and existing buildings from future flood events. 

n The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) works closely 

with state and local officials to identify flood hazard areas and flood 

risks, in particular the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). This is the 

area that has a 1-percent or greater chance of being flooded in any 

given year. FEMA maps this and other flood hazard areas on Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs).

n Flood insurance is required for insurable structures within the SFHA 

to compensate floodplain occupants for flood damages and to remove 

some of the financial burden of flood losses from taxpayers, such as 

for Federal disaster assistance and casualty loss deductions under 

Federal income taxes. 

n For more information about NFIP regulations, FIRMs, flood insurance 

policies, and preparation and recovery during flood events, please 

visit the official site of the NFIP: http://www.floodsmart.gov/. 

How to Determine Your Flood Risk:

n Using the FIRM, you can determine your house’s location relative to the flood risk zones. If your house is 

located within the SFHA, you can also determine the elevation of the base (1-percent annual chance) flood 

elevation (BFE) at your location. You can then compare your floor elevations with the BFE and determine your 

risk of damage from flooding. 

n Non-SFHA Zones B, C, and X are areas outside the 1-percent-annual-chance flood risk, or 100-year, 

floodplain. It is important to note that even if your house is located within a non-SFHA, there is still a 

possibility that your house will be subjected to flood damage and possibly even catastrophic flooding. Figure 

1 shows an example of a FIRM with arrows indicating pertinent information.

NFIP Regulations That May Impact Your Decision to Rebuild

If your house was damaged during a flood and is located within the SFHA, you need to be aware of NFIP 

regulations related to substantial improvement, substantial damage, and the increased cost of compliance 

provision in flood insurance policies, as you make a decision to rebuild.

http://www.fema.gov

Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) – The community’s 

official FEMA map delineating 

both the flood hazard areas 

and the risk insurance premium 

zones.

Special Flood Hazard Area 

(SFHA) – The area that has a 

1-percent or greater chance 

of flooding in any given year. 

A structure located within the 

SFHA has a 26-percent chance 

of suffering flood damage during 

the term of a 30-year mortgage. 

Flood insurance is mandatory 

for properties located within 

the SFHA that receive Federal 

financial assistance.
Considerations for Rebuilding Your Flood-Damaged House October 2009 Page 2 of 4

Substantial improvement means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a 

structure when the cost of the improvement equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the 

structure before the start of construction of the improvement. The term includes structures that have incurred 

substantial damage. 

Substantial damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure when the cost of restoring the 

structure to its pre-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure 

before the damage occurred. Substantial damage is determined regardless of the actual repair work 

performed.

n Floodplain management requirements for new construction apply to substantial improvements, and the 

structure must be brought into compliance with the NFIP. This can be done by elevating the structure, 

relocating the structure to an area outside of the SFHA, or demolishing the structure and rebuilding in 

compliance. 

n The substantial damage determination will be made by your local floodplain manager and/or building official, 

who can help you decide the best option for rebuilding and provide specific details regarding local ordinance 

requirements. 

Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) is a standard provision in flood insurance policies that pays the 

policyholder up to $30,000 to comply with a state or local floodplain management law or ordinance affecting 

repair or reconstruction of a flood-damaged structure. The structure must meet certain eligibility criteria, 

including a substantial damage or repetitive loss determination by a local official. Mitigation activities eligible 

for payment are elevation, relocation, and demolition. 

Figure 1. A FIRM panel illustrating information pertinent to the homeowner
Considerations for Rebuilding Your Flood-Damaged House October 2009 Page 3 of 4

Construction funded by ICC payments must be completed within 4 years of the substantial damage 

determination. ICC funds are available in addition to federal assistance provided to floodproof your house. 

Options to Minimize Risk of Future Flooding when Rebuilding

Several options are available for protecting your house from future flood damage. Building codes, floodplain 

management policies, local regulations, and personal preferences must all be taken into account. Choosing 

the right option requires research, planning, contacting local officials, and benefit-cost assessments (e.g., 

relocating or elevating the building will impact flood insurance premiums, while other options will not). 

Relocate to a site outside of the SFHA: 

n If your house is structurally sound, it may be possible to move it to a higher elevation on the same lot or to 

another location outside of the floodplain. 

Participate in a buyout or acquisition program:

n Property acquisition is the most permanent form of flood hazard mitigation. It removes people and property 

from harm’s way forever. In a property acquisition project, the community buys private property, acquires title 

to it, and then clears it. By law, that property, which is now public property, must forever remain open space 

land. The community can use it to create public parks, wildlife refuges, etc., but it cannot sell it to private 

individuals or develop it. 

n Property acquisitions work the same way as any other real estate transaction. Property owners who want 

to sell their properties will be given fair prices for them. It is an opportunity for people who live in or near 

hazard areas to relocate to a safer location.

n If you are interested in a buyout, you can contact your community’s floodplain manager to see if a buyout 

program is available in your community.

Elevate the house:

n This is one of the most common mitigation methods. When a house is properly elevated, the living area will 

be above less severe potential flood conditions (such as less than the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood). 

Most houses can be elevated; however, the cost of elevation varies based upon multiple factors such as 

the size of the house; type of foundation (e.g., slab-on-grade, crawlspace, basement); whether the house is 

wood-frame, masonry, or concrete; and the required elevation, which is based upon the BFE. 

n Although elevating a substantially damaged house can be expensive, it can also provide a number of 

benefits such as reducing future flood damage, lowering your insurance premium, adding value to the house, 

increasing usable space for parking or storage, improving the appearance of the house, helping protect 

contents, and reducing anxiety about future floods. For more information regarding elevating your house, 

please refer to the guidance document Above the Flood: Elevating your Floodprone House (FEMA 347) (see 

next page for website). 

Elevate the utilities: 

n Utilities in existing houses can often be effectively protected from flood damage. The easiest and most 

practical time to undertake this effort is during a renovation or repair project. If your house has been 

substantially damaged and/or is being substantially improved, the NFIP requires that its utility systems be 

protected from flood damage to the same criteria required for new construction. However, if your house has 

suffered less than substantial damage, you have three basic options for protecting utilities.

What elevation should I use when rebuilding/elevating my home? The FIRM establishes the 

expected elevation of floodwater during the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event (the BFE). In general, 

you should elevate the top of the lowest floor to this elevation. It is important that you contact 

your local floodplain management official because he/she can tell you the locally mandated flood 

elevation. Many states and local jurisdictions add an additional factor of safety, called a “freeboard” 

requirement, to the flood elevation. You should also ask your local officials how recent flood heights 

compare to the mapped 1-percent-annual-chance and 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood elevations. In 

general, the higher you elevate above the BFE, the more likely you are to prevent future flood damages, 

and the lower your flood insurance premiums might be.
Considerations for Rebuilding Your Flood-Damaged House October 2009 Page 4 of 4

n Replace the system with a like system – This option is typically the least expensive option, but provides 

no improved protection from future flood damage.

n Elevate your utilities – This option is usually the most costly, but it can protect you from the 

inconvenience of repeated future flood damages and is highly recommended by floodplain managers. 

For more information on protecting the utilities in your house, please refer to the guidance document 

Protecting Building Utilities from Flood Damage (FEMA 348) (see below for website). 

n Implement low-cost retrofits to utility systems – For a minimal additional cost, large benefits may be 

realized especially when protecting from smaller future flooding events. For example, two short electrical 

panel boards can be elevated side-by-side versus one long panel that stretches from the floor to the 

ceiling.

Wet and Dry Floodproofing: 

n Wet floodproofing prevents or provides resistance to damage from 

flooding by allowing floodwater to enter the house. Allowing floodwater 

to enter portions of the house (such as a crawl space or unfinished 

basement) equalizes the interior and exterior pressures on the wall 

during a flood. Equalized pressures reduce the likelihood of structural 

damage during a flood event. For information on wet floodproofing 

your house, please refer to the document Wet Floodproofing 

Requirements for Structures Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas in 

accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program (TB 7-93) (see 

below for website). 

n Another way to floodproof your house and its contents is sealing it so that floodwater cannot enter. This 

method, referred to as “dry floodproofing,” encompasses a variety of measures. Popular methods of dry 

floodproofing include applying a waterproof coating or membrane to the exterior walls of the house, installing 

watertight shields over openings, and strengthening walls so that they can withstand the pressures of 

floodwater and the impacts of flood-borne debris.

References

FEMA, 1992. Repairing Your Flooded Home. FEMA 234 and the American Red Cross ARC 4477. 

(Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1418)

FEMA, 1998. Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting. FEMA 312 

(Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1420)

FEMA, 2000. Above the Flood: Elevating your Floodprone House. FEMA 347 

(Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1424)

FEMA, 1999. Protecting Building Utilities from Flood Damage. FEMA 348 

(Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1750)

FEMA, 2007. Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures. FEMA 551 

(Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2737)

FEMA, 2008. Flood Damage-Resistant Materials Requirements for Buildings Located in Special Flood Hazard 

Areas in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program. FEMA Technical Bulletin 2 

(Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1580)

Floodproofing – Any combination 

of structural and non-structural 

additions, changes, or 

adjustments to structures that 

reduce or eliminate flood damage 

to structures and their contents.
MIDWEST FLOODS RECOVERY ADVISORY

Design Considerations for Improving 

Critical Facility Functionality 

During Flood Events

Design Considerations for Improving Critical Facility Functionality During Flood Events October 2009 Page 1 of 3

Purpose: This advisory provides recommendations for reducing the effects of flooding on existing critical 

facilities. It specifically applies to the essential critical facility systems that must remain functional during and 

after flood events, including:

n Electrical systems (including power, life-safety, communication, and IT equipment)

n Plumbing systems (including water, sanitary, and mechanical piping)

n Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems

n Specialized equipment (including conveyance, medical, and detention equipment)

n Non-specialized equipment that may require a long lead time to procure

This advisory discusses two techniques for reducing flood damages to essential critical-facility systems: 

elevation and dry floodproofing. 

Key Issues

FEMA identifies and maps flood hazard areas on its Flood Insurance 

Rate Maps (FIRMs). One of these areas is the Special Flood Hazard 

Area (SFHA), which is an area within a floodplain having a 1-percent 

or greater chance of flood occurrence in any given year.1 Another area 

typically depicted on FIRMs is the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood.2

People often have a mistaken understanding of this and believe that if a 

building is located outside of a mapped flood hazard area, it has no risk 

of flooding. The Midwest floods of 2008 demonstrated the fallacy of 

this assumption. Many of the buildings that were damaged or destroyed 

by flooding, including numerous critical facilities, were located outside 

of the SFHA and, in some cases, outside the 0.2-percent-annual-chance 

flood area as well. In many observed instances, assumptions regarding 

flood risk had led to design decisions that made buildings vulnerable to 

the extraordinary flooding experienced in 2008. Actions taken now can 

help to reduce damage from future flood events.

Techniques for Reducing Flood Losses

Elevation

In general, essential building systems should be elevated to at least 

the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood elevation and higher if it is practical 

to do so. If sufficient data is not available or if this level of protection 

is not feasible, utilities should be elevated to at least 2 feet above the 

1-percent-annual-chance flood elevation. 

A critical facility located outside the mapped flood hazard area in Iowa 

flooded during the Midwest floods of 2008. Vulnerable equipment that 

had been mounted in an integral cabinet with control switches and 

http://www.fema.gov

The potential for flooding, even 

for buildings outside of mapped 

SFHAs, should be considered 

during the reconstruction of 

damaged buildings. Even if 

the probability of repetitive 

flooding is small, both the cost 

of repairs and the critical nature 

of the facility warrant a careful 

consideration of relatively 

low-cost design solutions for 

mitigating future potential flood 

damages.

1 Also referred to as the “100-year floodplain.”

2 Also referred to as the “500-year floodplain.” 

To what types of critical 

facilities do these loss reduction 

techniques apply?

Schools, fire and police stations, 

emergency operations centers, 

water treatment plants, detention 

facilities, essential government 

buildings, and other facilities 

can all benefit from appropriate 

flood mitigation measures. 

Recommendations included 

in this advisory may also be 

beneficial to buildings not 

historically considered critical, 

such as banks, data centers, etc.
Design Considerations for Improving Critical Facility Functionality During Flood Events October 2009 Page 2 of 3

indicator lights was damaged when the cabinet was 

inundated with approximately 3 feet of floodwater 

(Figure 1). This cabinet can be reconfigured and 

mounted high enough to avoid future losses. Dual 

electrical panel boards, which consist of two shorter 

panels mounted side-by-side, can be used instead of a 

single, taller panel board. This proposed design allows 

the bottom of the panels to be placed higher above 

the floor and would reduce exposure to floodwater. To 

reduce the vulnerability of the feeders that connect the 

panelboards to the service equipment, feeder wiring 

should be run as high as possible. Feeders routed 

along the ceilings are much less vulnerable than 

feeders run along or under floors.

When elevating utilities, it is also necessary to consider 

not only each individual component, but how each 

is interconnected with other building systems and 

components. Some emergency generators during the 

Midwest floods of 2008, for example, were elevated 

and did not flood, but could not function because 

electrical equipment powered by the generator was 

installed at lower elevations. The generator shown in 

Figure 2 did not flood, but it was rendered ineffective 

because the transfer switch that directs electrical 

loads from the generator when normal utility power is 

not available was mounted below the transformer and 

flooded during the event.

Flooding can damage most electrical equipment,

and, once flooded, the equipment often needs to be 

Figure 1. This control cabinet was inundated with 

approximately 3 feet of floodwater (yellow arrow). Sensitive 

electronic equipment was damaged (Columbus Junction, Iowa).

Emergency Generators

For emergency generators to protect vital 

equipment and processes during and after 

a flood event, the following actions are 

recommended:

n	Locate emergency generators as high as 

practical. At a minimum, the generator should 

be placed above the main electrical service 

equipment and above the utility company padmount transformer.

n Locate the emergency generator’s transfer 

switch(es), and all electrical distribution 

equipment that the generator serves, at 

elevations that are at least as high as the 

generator.

n Supply the generator with a reliable source 

of fuel that will not be interrupted during an 

event. If a fuel tank is provided on site, anchor 

tank to resist floatation. 

Ensure access is provided to the generator for 

generator operation, refueling, and, for events 

where long duration operation may be needed, 

for periodic maintenance.

Figure 2. This emergency generator—elevated 2 feet above 

the floor on a concrete base—was not directly affected by 

floodwaters, but was rendered ineffective because the transfer 

switch was mounted below the transformer and flooded during 

the event (Cedar Rapids, Iowa).
Design Considerations for Improving Critical Facility Functionality During Flood Events October 2009 Page 3 of 3

completely removed and replaced. Although some electrical devices are designed for submerged use, locating 

electrical equipment above floodwater, in most cases, is the only effective mitigation measure for reducing 

flood risk to electrical components. Locating the equipment on a higher floor, for example, can significantly 

reduce its exposure to flooding. In some cases, locating the equipment on elevated concrete slabs or frames 

will provide the needed protection. This often is relatively inexpensive, but the effectiveness depends on a 

number of factors including the anticipated depth of flooding in the location.

Electrical conduits and raceway, on the other hand, often do not need to be removed and replaced after 

flooding, particularly if exposed to freshwater flooding. Some conduits can be cleaned, dried, and reused 

(this may require removing and reinstalling conductors). Conduits that provide equipment grounding should 

only be reused after it can be confirmed that flooding did not adversely affect the electrical continuity of the 

mechanical connections. If flooding has affected the electrical continuity of the metal raceway, the conduit 

should be removed and replaced, or a separate bonding conductor should be installed. 

Dry Floodproofing

Some equipment can be protected by dry floodproofing. One example of this technique involves constructing 

flood barriers to prevent floodwater from reaching critical equipment. For this and other types of dry 

floodproofing to be successful, however, equipment to discharge water that can seep through the dry 

floodproofing (for example, sump pumps connected to emergency power) needs to be installed, and structural 

systems need to be put in place to resist the large buoyancy forces that dry floodproofing can create. Without 

installing costly and expensive equipment, dry floodproofing is typically effective for only up to 3 to 4 feet of 

floodwater (dry floodproofing over 4 feet is typically impractical due to strength and buoyancy considerations).

Conclusions

Hazard mitigation measures should be incorporated into all stages and at all levels of planning and designing 

for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of existing critical facilities. Building professionals and decision 

makers should seek information and guidelines for implementing a variety of mitigation measures to reduce 

the vulnerability to damage and disruption of operations during severe flood events. By building more 

robust critical facilities that can remain operational during and after a major disaster, people’s lives and the 

community’s vitality can be better preserved and protected.

Additional Resources

n Risk Management Series Design Guide for Improving Critical Facility Safety from Flooding and High Winds 

(FEMA 543) (Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2441)

n Protecting Building Utilities from Flood Damage (FEMA 348) 

(Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1750)

n FEMA Technical Bulletins (Available at http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/floodplain/techbul.shtm)


FEMA P-765

Catalog No: 09092-3