Martin Farber, P.E.

Once again, the engineering news of the day is about the failure of major infrastructure, and the hardship and suffering that comes with it. Flood stages in the Midwest have again overtopped levees and floodwalls, swamped cities and towns in the Mississippi Valley, and sent residents scurrying to the safety of high ground.

Widespread flooding also occurred in the Mississippi Valley in 1993. In the aftermath, there were studies, with a lot of conclusions and recommendations. All but a few of those recommendations have yet to be carried out.

Unfortunately, real progress in flood control depends not so much on good engineers with good intentions as on the number of angry wet people on the evening news. There is something about human nature that requires a disaster to take place before there is enough public interest in flood control to even authorize a study. Good studies take time to complete, and, as time goes by without a new disaster, public interest in flood control wanes, while other interests and priorities move onto center stage. The result is that the flood study winds up on the shelf, and implementing its recommendations often requires a second disaster.

Early in my career, exactly such a scenario was played out in the area of dam safety inspections. A dam failed, with catastrophic consequences, and Congress authorized an inspection program. A few years later, after a second catastrophe, Congress appropriated the funds to support it.

The same dynamic is evident in the field of structural safety with respect to earthquakes. Real progress in this field also seems to come in the aftermath of quakes that cause bridges and buildings to collapse.

Many engineers choose to work in flood control, with the very noble intention of helping save lives. What they often find is that their expertise is not valued, and their practice is not in demand, until disaster strikes, and casualties mount.

It may finally occur to these engineers that their noble work simply encourages people who had lost their homes or businesses in the floodplain, and had moved to the safety of high ground, to believe that they can return and rebuild. Sometimes, the end result of their well-intentioned efforts is that considerably more people and more property will be in harms way. Under such circumstances, it's not easy to see how the flood control engineer's work saves lives. Indeed, we cannot blame these engineers if they sometimes wonder if their work doesn't ultimately increase casualties.

Of course, virtually all constructed civil works involve risks to life and limb, both to the workers who build them, and the people who use them. Just as roads, bridges, and buildings have risks, so do floodplains. In all these projects, the mere fact of risk does not prevent society from weighing the benefits, and deciding that these benefits justify the risks involved. The engineer's proper role is to minimize those risks to the extent practical, and to fully inform decision-makers of the risks that remain.

Risk has not caused society to abandon the motor vehicle as its primary means of transportation. Engineers have responded to these risks with innovations and improvements in highway safety and auto safety. These improvements have NOT lured people into cars who might otherwise have chosen to walk. Instead, they have simply made auto travel a bit less risky. In the same light, I would say that flood control engineers can't be blamed for society's decision to reclaim floodplains. Moreover, these engineers deserve credit for reducing the risks of reclamation.

This still leaves us with the ultimate question of "how safe is safe enough?" In our Sacramento Section, the question was explored by leading experts at our 2007 Levee Conference. More recently, it has captured the interest of many members and friends of our new Constuction Institute, Geo-Institute, and Environmental and Water Resources Institute. A complete and proper discussion of this question would take a lot more space than I have in this newsletter. I would only offer this much: society seems to ignore the question during dry years, and then makes hasty, emotional decisions immediately following a disaster. As civil engineers, we can and should enter the public dialog, to help make such decisions dispassionately, based on hard data, sound engineering judgment, and the principles of sustainability and engineering ethics. And the time for us to speak out is BEFORE the next flood.