Long Term Possible Flood Control Alternatives

Cedar Rapids faces the challenge of detering future flooding while redeveloping portions of the City that were ravaged by the flood waters. As the city redevelops it will need to think of cost effective ways of diverting or storing water. These options will help to decrease flooding in the city, but nothing can be done to flood proof the city. This is neither financially possible nor feasible from an engineering perspective. It would require massive relocation of the downtown and all of the close in neighborhoods virtually destroying what is the heart of the City. However, there are cost effective measures that can reduce the impact of flooding and hopefully, minimize the occurance of floods.

Cedar Rapids developed at a narrow area on the river, making river crossings simple. But the narrows create a choke point which contributes to the flooding.

Here, the City has two options. The City could work with the State and County to impound or slow water above the City. The second option is to increase velocity downstream. Both these alternatives are possible, but would require detailed study, and could be very costly. These alternative should be examined in the light of what the City hopes to redevelop. Now, is the time for the City to see themselves in a different light and say what is it that we have wanted to be and if we are going to have to redevelop, how do we achieve this vision. Flood control becomes one element to examine in the full redevelopment picture.

If the City wanted to look at a recreation alternative as an outcome, then purchasing land above the City is an alternative. Here, a dam or impoundment could be developed upstream above the downtown area. The dam could be constructed to have almost no impact during normal flow periods, but be designed to impound water as flood levels increased. This option would require acquisition of property above the structure that would be impacted by the dam. Under normal circumstances, the City could use this land for recreational purposes. During floods it would hold water that would be slowly released back into the river.

If homes are removed from part of the flood plain, facilities could be developed on these areas for storage of water.

The large landfill just south of downtown also appears to slow water discharge from the central city. The landfill could be moved to increase the rate of discharge downstream from the city, although this would be very costly. This land could also be used for recreational purposes.

There are a number of old quarries which could be retrofitted to serve as storm water facilities. The quarries would be pumped to stay dry, with spillways installed to store water during the flood stage, to be pumped out after the flood.

New quarries designed to serve the same function may also be possible. There is likely stone or gravel in these areas along the river. As an economic development tool, the quarries may be self financing, selling the material, with the remaining quarry serving as flood storage.

The above are only a listing of alternatives. Each carries with them a cost and an impact. All of these would be evaluated fully before any conclusion about flood mitigation occurs.