Where's the Triage?

Earlier this summer, shortly after the town experienced the second of two devastating floods in less than two years, an article in USA Today highlighted the action (or, as some residents might say, inaction) of government officials related to flood prevention.  The article included the following:

Leaders in Howard County crafted a thorough plan in the aftermath of the 2016 flooding disaster and say large changes to mitigate a flood simply can't happen overnight, even though they're moving quickly.

But the downtown area, which is woven with three different rivers, isn't a stranger to flooding, and numerous reports over the years, including as far back as the 1970s, have warned that Ellicott City, in particular, was in danger and a flood could devastate the area.

Local leaders long have known that storms could leave the city, which sits at the bottom of a valley, in shambles. But critics say very little over the years has been done to meet the threat head-on, even though study after study has offered both warnings of disaster and possible solutions.

After the (2016) flood… Howard County commissioned a study that pointed to blocked water channels as one of the primary reasons for flooding. Another study found that the walls along streams that wind through the city needed repairs and wouldn’t hold up against heavy floods.

Other studies identified solutions to the threat: The clearest way to help mitigate flooding was through retention ponds. The county rejected the plans because of the high expense and low reward since the fixtures wouldn't be a cure-all for the floods, especially for intense storms such as what the area saw Sunday.

The county reversed its decision after the 2016 floods. Four stormwater retention facilities are in the progress of being planned and constructed…

"It’s study after study after study. That’s all they do is conduct studies," said Ron Peters, a property owner who works on a citizen flood group with Howard County. "It’s just another way for them to not actually do anything."…

But all of the posed solutions wouldn't completely fix the community's problems since much of it is centers on old structures that don't have to meet current standards for storm water management, such as retention ponds that could absorb rain.

ELLICOTT CITY WATERSHED MASTER PLAN

So let’s take a look at Howard County’s effort.  Documents on their Master Plan web page for Ellicott City, linked here (including quoted presentations and map on thispage), are preceded by the following statement:

 

“Howard County launched its master plan process for Ellicott City and its watershed on May 31st, 2017. The master plan process will help define a comprehensive community-driven vision for rebuilding a stronger and more resilient Ellicott City. The master plan will take a fresh and creative look at potential long term flood solutions and strategies.”

The plan focuses on a much larger watershed area (see map above), some of which has been impacted by recent development.  According to the plan,

1.  Portions of the watershed are identified as areas of growth and revitalization in PlanHoward 2030, particularly the historic core and those areas adjacent to Route 40.

2.  The historic core is established over the confluence of multiple streams and is characterized by steep topography.

3.  The existing infrastructure is unable to contain the 100 year storm and even smaller storms.

4.  As we consider upstream development, it is important to understand that development in a watershed is not the sole or primary source of flooding. Additionally, the impact of development depends on the storm water management requirements at the time of construction.

The plan discusses the reasons for the repeated flooding—at least the reason the particular physical configuration of the city vis-à-vis the topography affects the impact of major storms.  These components then seem to direct the reader directly to the three major components of the solution:

1.  Addressing retention and drainage in upstream development;

2.  Widening conveyance channels and correcting constriction points (e.g., by diversion); and

3.  Flood-proofing businesses in harm’s way (e.g., by making the first level of most buildings space in which water can flow through).

The planning presentation continues:

“The greatest public improvements to reduce flood impacts in Ellicott City can be made by addressing conveyance, alongside other practices that include retention basins in the watershed and preventing additional runoff from redevelopment.”  Officials then add that “this needs to be done while balancing water quality, cost benefits, constructability, and policies for appropriate growth and revitalization.”

It’s interesting to note that this plan was begun in response to the 2016 flood, but a year before the “repeat” flood of 2018. And yet there doesn’t seem to be any change in urgency attributed to its implementation. 

In my opinion, the long-term answer to preventing this kind of problem in the future rests on bold actions that might require taking property, relocating businesses, and redirecting funding to the “flood prevention” pieces of the plan that reduce the physical impact of flooding, while paying less attention to concerns for allowing growth and improved water quality. 

A TRIAGE APPROACH

A triage approach is needed, but it doesn’t seem to be a priority for the County.  In an interesting article comparing the use of a triage approach in disaster recovery to that of an IT systems manager, author Mike Talon notes that:

Modern military, relief, and medical organizations have practiced a workflow management technique known as triage for nearly a century now. The idea is that the appropriate amount of effort should be put forth for each situation, but before that can happen, the situation must be defined and classified to ensure it receives the proper treatment. Triage is the process of placing situations into those classifications, and the practice of triage can be quite valuable in planning out Disaster Recovery operations as well.

He lays out various stages of his approach. I would expand the final stages of Talon’s triage designation beyond simply addressing the current problem to include the period of rebuilding and planning.  His comment that Tier 5 requires “careful consideration of future events that are likely to occur at any moment,” is particularly important here. 

At one point in my career, I was worked with a major university as a project manager. Faced with a massive deferred maintenance backlog, I was tasked with helping our Board make informed decisions in terms of using our finite resources to make the highest priority repairs first, thereby preserving as much function as possible from the buildings we had. Typically, this meant first repairing the building “envelope” (such things as roofs, windows, walls, etc.) to reduce the impact of weather and water infiltration.  Only then, once a building was watertight and structurally sound, we would make repairs to systems and interiors without fear of further damage.

One project involved a historic theater facility that had deteriorated badly over the years.  As our budget was limited, we set about establishing a scope of work for an initial phase to repair a seriously leaking roof, securing windows and doors, and repointing the masonry walls to preserve the structural integrity of the facility.  A second phase would include interior reconfiguration and improvements that included accommodating the requirements of the newly established Americans with Disabilities Act. Finally, the interior would be refurbished and refinished with new seating, etc.

Shortly before work was to begin, a visitor to the theater threatened a lawsuit related to the new ADA law, citing the difficulty in accessing the more desired seating in the facility by the disabled.  The university took the complaint very seriously and worked through the complaint successfully.  In the interim, however, we were directed to cease work on the facility until the complaint could be resolved.  Ultimately, the work did commence, but not until after significant additional funding had been secured so the accessibility improvements could be made as part of the same contract.   

Ironically, the logical progression of construction still required the exterior envelope improvements be made first.  Unfortunately for the theater, however, the delay made the whole project more costly, as the leaky roof continued to damage the interior for an additional year.

The point here isn’t that accessibility or life safety improvements aren’t important, but that sometimes a slight reshuffling of priorities makes sense.   

In the case of Ellicott City, pulling out all the stops to prevent further flood damage should be an absolute first priority.  After all, no investments in pedestrian improvements, parking, or rebuilding of amenities is safe until the water stops flowing through town.