Hancher Relocation Process and Site

July 10, 2009, 8:30 a.m.

University Offers Useful Model for Major Decisions
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
The way the University of Iowa is going about the Hancher-Voxman-Clapp rebuilding project interests me almost as much in terms of the decision making process and procedure as the ultimate outcome.

The UI's "Facilities Management" held a major town hall-style meeting last night (July 9) with an invitation to all local folks interested in coming -- at which an estimated 350 showed up. It has created a Web site with relevant information, and provided an email address for those wishing to offer opinions, suggestions, and objections. It promises more public meetings in the future.

The Web site is http://facilities.uiowa.edu/hvc-site.htm. The email address is hvc-site@uiowa.edu.

Unlike some past University -- and City, business and homeowner ongoing -- decisions to flout warnings about building in flood plains, and failing to provide flood-mitigating greenways, this time the University is taking very seriously the risk of future flooding. Its studies are not yet completed, but the Web site provides access to the current pdf file-report: Siting of Hancher/Voxman/Clapp and Art Building Flood Mitigation Task Force Recommendations, e.g., "The second and most important recommendation of the Task Force is that the future Hancher/Voxman/Clapp and Art Building complexes be designed and built in such a way that they are protected at least to an elevation two feet above the 500-year floodplain, as that 500-year floodplain has been newly calculated by a 2009 hydrologic study conducted by the Corps of Engineers and funded by the University of Iowa. This level of protection would be approximately seven feet above the high water elevation of the 2008 flood."

And the Web site also provides a link to the Power Point slides used at last evening's meeting. If you're interested in either the ultimate location of the buildings, or the process issues surrounding the University's decision-making process, these slides are very much worth your time. They include maps of the eight sites' locations, photos of the sites, and perhaps most significant a listing of the "criteria" used for evaluating them, which of those were considered "critical," and a comparative evaluation of the two sites thought to be the best of the eight.

Here is Lee Hermiston's report of last night's meeting: Lee Hermiston, "2 Possible Hancher Sites Show Promise; Citizens discuss relocating complex at public forum," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 10, 2009 ("While eight sites on and off campus have been identified, Joe Hibbard of Sasaki and Associates said not all of them will fit space, parking, topography and other critical needs. . . . The two sites with the most promise are the land directly north of the existing Hancher-Voxman-Clapp complex, dubbed Site 1, and a two-block parcel of land in downtown Iowa City"). And see, Erin Jordan, "Hancher Site List Narrowed to Two," Des Moines Register, July 10, 2009; Diane Heldt, "East vs. West for Relocated Hancher," The Gazette, July 10, 2009, p. A1.

The Press-Citizen's editorial yesterday urging attendance: Editorial, "Give Your Input Tonight on Where to Move Hancher," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 9, 2009

And some letters to the editor yesterday that put forth arguments for and against the two top sites:

Katherine Belgum, "Move Facility West of Its Present Site," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 9, 2009 ("The obvious choice is right along Riverside Drive just west of where the buildings are now located -- but built close to the street and uphill from there current location")

Regenia Bailey, "Iowa City Needs an Urban Auditorium," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 9, 2009 ("Placing Hancher Auditorium and the School of Music in downtown -- ideally south of Burlington Street -- would meet both city and UI objectives")

Donald Baxter, "Link New Hancher and Courthouse," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 9, 2009 ("Hancher should be located in such a place as to reinforce the growth of Iowa City's downtown, so the locations along Burlington Street are the most ideal")

Commentary

As you may have gathered, I'm relatively well impressed with the process. If I recall correctly the "eight sites" were disclosed to the community by the University some time in March, rather than sprung on us last evening. Unlike the school board's proposal to close Roosevelt Elementary School, last night's meeting didn't have the aura of a "done deal." That may just be because the consultant and officials involved were simply more slick with their public relations than the school board members were with theirs. It's possible that the "March eight" were simply straw men to provide the illusion of alternative possibilities when "site 1" was already pretty obvious to them. But if that's the case they're entitled to some credit for their PR skills (an application of valuable skills somewhat analogous to the old advice, "be sincere, even if you don't mean it").

The point is, whatever may have gone on in back rooms, their list of "criteria" seemed rational and genuine, their comparative evaluation of sites 1 and 6 seemed balanced (that is, it acknowledged the strengths and weaknesses of each) rather than an argumentative effort to favor one over the other. They did hold the town meeting. They did explain and demonstrate their rational process. They are seeking to get the best data available with regard to risk from future floods, and they seem to be willing to have their decision driven by that data. They did listen to the remarks of a significant number of attendees. And the listening could come across as genuine since they had not merely presented to the audience what they were going to do (even if that was the case), but rather their "criteria" in a process that was represented to be ongoing rather than a done deal, and one that would involve additional public meetings.

Is there a template we can draw out of the contrast between the school board and Facilities Management approaches? I think so.

To hold a public meeting, with the express or implied representation that an institution genuinely seeks public input -- ideas, suggestions, reactions, objections -- that will help shape and be incorporated in a final decision, when in fact the decision has been made, is disingenuous at best and seriously self-defeating. It's worse than holding no meeting at all. Not only was the public not included, it was lied to and its efforts were merely wasted time.

On the other hand, there is a reason why experts with professional training are used by institutions as employees or consultants. You can't turn every decision over to a majority vote of the inadequately-informed, special-interest-driven mob.

So what's the best balance? I think the judicial process has something to offer in a procedure that might include the following:

o provide as much advance notice and transparency as possible with regard to future decisions

o outline the issues and relevant data for the public, in writing, on Web sites, as early in the process as possible

o include the criteria the institution believes relevant, along with a full and candid, independent, analysis of the arguments and data pro and con with regard to each option

o hold public meetings, and provide other opportunities for public input, at that point -- with a focus not on the ultimate decision, but on the data that needs to be gathered and the criteria that are relevant, of those the ones that are "crucial," and what is, and is not, thought to be appropriate analysis

o make some modifications, however relatively insignificant, in those data and criteria based on suggestions received, to provide the reality as well as the appearance of genuine listening and response -- rather than just rejecting all out of hand and sticking with the institution's initial list

o hold a public meeting at which the options (not a "decision," but the options) are presented along with an analysis of each in accord with the agreed upon criteria and data; listen and respond as appropriate to presentations by members of the public (while politely urging them to stick to the agreed upon criteria and avoid repeating the arguments of others)

o finally -- and the analog drawn from appellate court process -- when the ultimate decision is made issue a written explanation of how it was arrived at and why, that identifies and acknowledges every suggestion that came from the public throughout the process and the impact it had on the decision and why. (For example, suggestions were made last evening regarding the possibility of building over the Iowa River, or re-purposing the Foundation building as Clapp. Such ideas should be considered (even if ultimately rejected) -- rather than merely rejecting them, like universal, single-payer health care, as "off the table.")

A couple substantive ideas, and then I'm through.

On the assumption the "New Hancher" will go somewhere in the area bounded by the Iowa River, Park Road, and Riverside Drive I do hope some detailed thought will go into the potential greenway -- (a) using a parking lot surface that permits the permeability of water into the subsoil, and (b) planting of the grasses most able to hold back runoff. Properly planted, flood plains without homes and buildings not only eliminate property damage, they can also reduce the seriousness of the floods that will, inevitably, occur -- with their potential to absorb as much as a five-inch rain without raising the level of the River.

Has thought been given to re-routing Riverside Drive, so that its intersection with Park Road would occur nearer the River, across Park Road from the lower entrance into City Park? This could free up even more land near the top, rather than the bottom, of the present acreage.

What are the University's plans for 50 years out? I can recall when most of the University's buildings were within an easy walk of the Pentacrest. It was not until the late 1920s that it began to build (e.g., field house, hosptial, stadium) on the West side. It always seemed a shame to me that we did not take advantage of the $100 million spent on refurbishing Kinnick to buy land, and build a modern stadium and parking area, well out of town. Is the hospital complex going to have to continue to "build up instead of out"? The rest of the University as well? Or are we, at some point going to have to establish a second campus -- perhaps linked by monorail? If not, no problem (except for the congestion, and impact on Iowa City's historic neighborhoods, and downtown). But if that will need to happen at some point we might be wise to be thinking about it now, and considering (even if considering and then rejecting) the possibility of doing that with the "New Hancher" (while leaving Voxman and Clapp nearer to where they are).

All thoughts prompted by one evening meeting.
_____________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson

# # #

Floodplains, Farming and Fairs

August 19, 2008, 8:10 a.m.

Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"Earthpark: 'Pretty Quiet Phase; No Timetable to Speak of,'" August 14, 2008.
"Forbes, Mural, Poverty and 7 Presidential Candidates," August 17, 2008.
"UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9, is now being updated as a Web page, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present.
"UI Football Promoting Gambling?" September 16, 2006.
"How to Build an Indoor Rain Forest," July 10, 2008.
"What We Know That Ain't So," July 28, 2006.
"Media's Medicines," August 12, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Earthpark, Editorials and Beating Dead Horses," August 15, 2008.
"Alcohol, Three Items and a Comment," January 22, 2008.
And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries


Restrict building in floodplain

In the course of lavishing -- deserved -- editorial praise on local hero Steve McGuire the Press-Citizen closed its editorial with, "we also hope that the Flood of 2008 teaches us all that we need to restrict the building of any new structures in the floodplain . . .." Editorial, "Look for a Hero, and You'll Find Steve McGuire," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 19, 2008, p. A8.

It's a theme we explored here yesterday in "Go With the Flow," August 18, 2008.

Iowa Farming: Corn, Beans and Data

In 1979 I was a "presidential adviser" helping to arrange a White House Conference on Libraries and Information Services. It was far enough along in the "Information Age" that one could see through the fog with some precision to where we would likely be 10 and 20 years later. In the 1980s I was writing a nationally syndicated column, "Communications Watch," and hosting a weekly TV program distributed by PBS, "New Tech Times." Alas, both would have been more successful had they not been 15 years ahead of their time.

Equally untimely when I returned to Iowa in 1980 were my efforts to get Governor Terry Branstad to share my enthusiasm and see the potential of of the Information Age for Iowa's economy. The high tech, high pay jobs with CompuServe in Columbus, Ohio, could have been in Coralville. The lower-paid jobs as 800-number operators in Omaha could have been in Council Bluffs; the Visa receipt processors in the Dakotas could have been in Davenport. In spite of what I recall as three exchanges of letters I was never able to get the idea through to him. (He ultimately referred me to the State employee responsible for paying the State's phone bill every month.)

I had an equivalent experience years later with the University upon returning from Seoul, South Korea, with a proposal for a multi-billion-dollar cash flow project providing education to business employees around the Pacific Rim. Ditto with a multi-million dollar offer from Washington, D.C., for the UI to do a rural delivery tele-medicine project (no one was -- then -- interested in the idea); or online delivery of education in the U.S., then said to have no future, and now a centerpiece of universities throughout the country -- all of which were offered by me pro bono without the prospect of a dollar for myself.

So I was pleased to see that last Sunday's Register had a major story on Iowa's actual, and future potential, "data centers." Donnelle Eller, "Iowa poised to collect even more data farms," Des Moines Register, August 17, 2008, p. D1.

That's a far cry from everything we could have been doing over the past 30 years with electronic economics. But better late than never, I guess.

Although, like any other get-rich-quick proposal (see Earthpark), it's necessary to do a little analysis before taking the leap.

A Register reader added a comment to Eller's story suggesting those interested in economic development from data centers consider why Microsoft makes much more sense (and dollars) for economic development than Google. If you're playing an active role in this Iowa effort you'll want to read the article they recommended: "Google vs. Microsoft in Data Center Economics," Data Center Knowledge, April 16, 2008.

What's Fair is Fair

This year's Iowa State Fair (August 7-17) "was the most-attended fair in the event's 154-year history. This year's estimated total of 1,109,150 exceeded the record of 1,053,978 set in 2004 by more than 55,000, according to fair records. . . . Jessica O'Riley, communications manager for the Iowa Division of Tourism, said the record attendance can be attributed to a national travel trend. 'People are taking shorter, more frequent trips,' said O'Riley. 'With gas prices as they are, the fair remains one of those favorite vacation destinations.'" Molly Hottle, "U gotta smile at fair attendance numbers," Des Moines Register, August 19, 2008.

That's good news and bad news. The good news is that the Iowa State Fair remains one of the nation's top attendance state fairs. The bad news is that the analysis of why that is should send up an enormous red flag for those who casually base projected attendance for their proposed attractions on the total population living within 250 miles of their community.

# # #

Go with the Flow

August 18, 2008, 11:00 a.m.

Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"Earthpark: 'Pretty Quiet Phase; No Timetable to Speak of,'" August 14, 2008.
"UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9, and related Web page, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present.
"Forbes, Mural, Poverty and 7 Presidential Candidates," August 17, 2008.
"How to Build an Indoor Rain Forest," July 10, 2008.
"UI Football Promoting Gambling?" September 16, 2006.
"Media's Medicines," August 12, 2008.
"What We Know That Ain't So," July 28, 2006.
"Alcohol, Three Items and a Comment," January 22, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.

"How Do You Protect a City from Floods?" . . .
. . . The Gazette asks by way of a page one headline this morning.

It's kind of a no-brainer, as we say -- as The Gazette's story about Grand Forks, North Dakota, explains.

You "go with the flow" -- not against it.

You want to minimize or eliminate economic losses from floods? Don't put things of economic value where it is likely there will some day be flood waters. Pretty simple, huh?

Every community wants and needs some open areas anyway for walking, jogging and bicycling trails; for softball fields and Frisbee golf; for picnicking and camping; for prairies and pasture; for nature preserves and wetlands. By using the lands along rivers and streams for such purposes the community gains a number of other benefits as well as the attraction of flowing waters for those seeking recreation.

There are fewer floods. The ones that occur are less severe. They come on more slowly. And they cause no economic damage to businesses and homes.

How can that be?

Homes, businesses, roads and parking lots not only suffer economic losses, they actually help bring on the flooding and make it worse. Why? Because they cannot absorb rainfall. They increase, and speed up, the run off.

Grasses, prairies, wetlands and filters (growth immediately adjacent to rivers) can sometimes absorb as much as a five-inch rapid rain with no runoff whatsoever. They can prevent some flooding entirely. Such runoff as there may be will be much less, and slower, than from hard surfaced areas.

And if such a floodplain is ever covered with water the only loss is the inability to use the area for recreation until the waters recede, and the economic cost of a minor cleanup.

Such intelligent use of land -- building homes and businesses above and away from floodplains, and deliberately preferring floodplains for parks and conservation areas -- is not something that any preexisting community can do over night. But there's no reason why every community cannot adopt and execute such a 30- or 50-year plan.

* Immediately stop putting public money into (or providing TIFs and other tax forgiveness for) public, corporate or private structures in such areas -- whether for repair, rebuilding or new construction.

* Immediately focus on such land as is currently available to the city or county that is within floodplain areas and begin using it for recreational and conservation purposes.

* Modify zoning and building code regulations, and utilize such incentives as may be available, including buyouts, to encourage movement of businesses and homes out of floodplains.

By providing sufficient time for transitions, and depreciation accounting, the burden on current business and home residents would be minimized if not eliminated and the entire community would share in the benefits.

This is not a theoretical dream. Other communities are doing it. Iowa's cities should, too.

Clearly, Grand Forks' approach to flood control involved far more than greenways, but equally clearly greenways played a major role.

Here's the story:


"[T]he 2,200 acres of park and trails between the levees and the river have become an asset.

"Pedestrian bridges span the river at the north and south ends of the city.

"The former Lincoln Park neighborhood is a shady park with a Frisbee golf course and dog park.

[Photo Credit: Jim Sloslarek/The Gazette.]

". . . Bicyclists zip in and out of the levee gateways. Couples stroll along the water. There's steady foot traffic across the DeMers Avenue bridge.

"Shawn Clapp . . . said the riverfront is even busier when students return to the University of North Dakota for fall classes. People want to be protected from the river, but they still want to be around it . . .. [B]y protecting the city but inviting people into the greenway, [Grand Forks] accomplishes both.

"'It's just an entrance to your greenway,' he said. 'You almost forget that it's there.'"

Adam Belz, "The Floods of 2008: How Do You Protect a City from Floods?" The Gazette, August 18, 2008, p. A1; online as "How Do You Protect a City from Floods?" August 17, 2008, updated 12:17 p.m.

Coincidentally, the Register had an op ed this morning pleading for the protection of an Iowa greenway that's already in existence. John Wenck, "Seek other options: Don't build road through river greenbelt," Des Moines Register, August 18, 2008. Wenck, outreach coordinator of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, notes, "Iowa is one of the most altered states in the Union. More than 90 percent of the land has been converted into farm fields and development properties since the 1830s. . . . [T]here is a push to widen and extend Northwest 26th Street through the Des Moines River Greenbelt, which will destroy natural habitat and negatively impact recreation for miles along this beautiful stretch of river."

And see, "Flooding resulted in part because so many of Iowa's wetlands have been destroyed and the landscape has been so altered. The Register reported that 'tons of waste spilled into floodwaters.' Pesticides, chemicals, oils, sewage, hog manure and even hogs wound up in our waters." Neila Seaman, "Don't neglect environment in recovery discussions," Des Moines Register, August 13, 2008.

# # #

Floodplains, Art and Celebrities' Affairs

August 9, 2008, 6:10 p.m.

[Note: The "Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 8, 2008, blog entry remains at its former location; however, any updates to it following August 8, 2008, will be found, along with the blog entry as of August 8, at a new Web site, Nicholas Johnson, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08."]

Now . . . Back to a Range of Subjects
Floodplains and Flood Planning

There were more than a couple of lines in Coralville City Administrator Kelly Hayworth's op ed this morning that caught my eye:

"Continued development in the Iowa River Landing will include generous areas of open space along the river . . .. We will work toward dedicating that area [the banks of Biscuit Creek] to green space in the future.

"The Iowa River is one of our greatest assets, and incorporation of green space is a dual-purpose project, allowing us to provide access to the waterfront while also practicing floodplain management."

Kelly Hayworth, "Coralville's post-flood development; Progress will be 'mindful of the flood but not ended by it,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 9, 2008.

What I'd like to see is for Coralville, Iowa City, Cedar Rapids -- all of Iowa's communities along rivers -- to come up with 30-to-75-year plans regarding their flood plains.

Building roads, parking lots, malls, suburban and businesses in floodplains just multiplies the disastrous consequences of floods. Not only does it mean the economic losses will be greater when floods occur, but the rapid runoff it accelerates also means that the floods will occur more often, be of greater seriousness, and the water will run off and rise faster than with consciously developed floodplains.

We need to have recreational areas, wildlife habitats, prairies and pastures, biking and jogging trails, and wetlands somewhere. And Iowa is virtually last in the nation at the moment in our set-asides of land for such purposes. By using land in the floodplains along our rivers for these purposes we get a dual benefit -- radical reduction, if not elimination, of the economic losses from flood damage, and access to these multi-purpose acres that shouldn't be used for anything but recreation and wildlife habitats anyway.

So why a 30-to-75-year plan? Because I wouldn't want to pull off something like this in five or ten years even if we could -- and politically we simply can't. Like using attrition rather than firing when a workforce needs to be reduced, giving owners incentives and as much time as possible to arrange for moves makes it easier on everyone.

Whether we want to provide humanitarian aid to those ravaged by floods (as distinguished from funds for rebuilding) is a subject I'm open to discussing but need not now address.

But it seems to me kind of obvious that we should (1) clearly define the 500-year-floodplain for the relevant rivers; (2) draw up a plan as to how that land might best be used once our project is concluded; (3) forbid any new building (or expansion of the footprint) of homes, businesses, parking lots or roads in floodplains; (4) use every available incentive (such as buyouts) to discourage rebuilding or repair; (5) prohibit the construction of public buildings on such land; (6) prohibit the use of any public money, or tax incentives such as TIFs, for for-profit or non-profit businesses operating in floodplains, and (7) immediately begin the process of conversion, by removing buildings and roads where we can, planting prairies, pastures, trees, and the grasses with root systems that can operate as filters near rivers, and start the demonstration of what wise floodplain planning and stewardship can look like.


Selling the Pollock

The Press-Citizen got it right this morning in its Editorial, "Don't sell priceless 'Mural' to pay off flood damages," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 9, 2008 ("Although [selling Jackson Pollock's 'Mural' painting] might make sense to business school professors, we said it recognized neither the historic importance of Pollock's painting nor how "Mural" has been identified with UI for three generations. A gift to UI from art collector Peggy Guggenheim in 1953, 'Mural' predates the museum itself -- which opened in 1969 -- and is arguably the most important item in the museum's permanent collection. . . . Last year, we said neither Iowa nor the university should surrender the great in order to purchase the mediocre."

There are a couple of issues here -- aside from the old line about "those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing."

(1) I'm reminded of a case some years back when the UI Foundation was given a farm -- with stipulations. Can't swear I've got the facts right, but as I recall them the donor wanted to insure that the tenant on the farm could continue to farm it. The Foundation took the position that once it got the property it could do with it what it wanted -- and what it wanted did not include carrying out the donor's wishes.

I don't know what Ms. Guggenheim had in mind when she donated the Pollock, but knowing something of her commitment to art I can't imagine that she thought the great gift she was giving the University was nothing more than the equivalent of shares of stock, something to be sold whenever the University decided it would rather have the cash the painting could bring at an art auction.

(2) It's not like major gifts of this kind were purchased by Iowa's taxpayers -- who could subsequently legitimately decide to sell them for the money. These were gifts. But for donor generosity we'd never have had the property in question. And the more we unilaterally treat such gifts from the past with such disrespect the less likely we are to receive such gifts in the future. Selling the Pollock is self-defeating over the long run.

(3) Anytime the state, or one of its universities, wants to sell something of extraordinary and irreplaceable value -- I recall the sale of WOI-TV -- I think about how much cash we could get from a sale of Iowa's topsoil. I'm sure there's some guy in Arizona -- or the Middle East -- who would give us big bucks for it. Provide a little water for irrigation and it could create some of the world's best farmland in a desert anywhere on earth.

(4) There are "values" that exist separate and apart from what something will sell for. Have you ever had the experience of reaching for the Phillips screwdriver, or ballpoint pen, in the place to which it was supposed to be returned, and found it wasn't there? Was your reaction affected by the fact that you probably couldn't have sold the ballpoint pen at auction for even 10 cents? Is the home you live in affected by the fact it's now worth 10 times what you paid for it -- when it's the same square feet, with the same view out the front windows -- aside from the fact that you're paying many times more in property tax? So it is with a painting; the quality it has, the pleasure it gives you, the skill of the artist it reflects, is not a function of its dollar value.

So what do I really think? Yeah, I guess you'd have to count me among those -- a group that includes UI President Sally Mason ("I do not want to sell the painting. Let me be fully clear") -- who think we ought to keep the Pollock. Brian Morelli, "Regents to Put Value on UI's Pollock Painting," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 7, 2008.

The John Edwards Affair

I have little or no interest in reading, or commenting, about the August 8 story, and ABC Nightline interview, regarding the details of a 2006 affair of John Edwards.

But there's a quote from his interview that I do think worth repeating:

"I went from being a senator, a young senator to being considered for vice president, running for president, being a vice presidential candidate and becoming a national public figure. All of which fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want. You're invincible. And there will be no consequences."

Rhonda Schwartz, Brian Ross, and Chris Francescani, "Edwards Admits Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential Candidate; In an ABC News Nightline Interview, Edwards Reveals He Cheated, But Didn't Father Child," ABC News, August 8, 2008.

It's not an exculpatory statement, certainly, and I have no reason to believe it was intended to be. But I do think it is revealing and insightful, and perhaps of some use to those -- whether intrigued or repulsed -- by the behavior of celebrities, whether athletes, politicians, TV/movie stars, rock musicians, corporate executives, or those merely famous for being famous.

The remarkable thing is not that so many public figures seem to fall ill to the condition/attitude he describes but that there are so many who do not.

It's a quality, a characteristic, a kind of pressure on public figure, that should be of interest to all of us in the business of picking our public officials in primaries and elections -- from school board to president -- as well as a subject for study by psychologists and psychiatrists, and political scientists.

It's a notable comment because that kind of self-diagnosis is rare from anyone, but especially those who, by dint of their position, end up having to make very public apologies for their behavior.

# # #

Gazette's Flood Plan, Floodplains & Greenbelts

June 21, 2008, 7:45 a.m., 12:40 p.m.

Gazette Increases Volume of Chorus
This morning, June 21, The Gazette adds its powerful editorial voice to the growing chorus of support for flood prevention methods that work with, rather than against, Mother Nature. See blog entries, comments, quotes and links in, Nicholas Johnson, "Greenbelts, Greenways and Flood Prevention," June 16, 2008; Nicholas Johnson, "Floods and Football," June 17, 2008; Nicholas Johnson, "Flooding, Greenbelts & Catching Up With State29," June 18, 2008; Nicholas Johnson, "Greenbelts and Floodplains," June 20, 2008.

While Iowa’s catastrophic flooding has been widely blamed on the deluge that fell from the sky, hydrologists, conservationists and government officials told the Washington Post this week they believe man is to blame, too, possibly even more than Mother Nature.

From farm drainage tiling, to parking lots that smother once permeable pasture or wetlands, no one denies that man’s development activities have changed the pace of storm water runoff, sending it shooting toward waterways instead of slowly meandering as nature intended it to, into the ground.

The bottom line: Mother Nature’s wet wrath is something largely out of our control. But our landscape is ours to shape.

Our lessons should have been learned in 1993. But we’re wiser now, a nation that is getting more comfortable with living “green.” So from this flood forward, we can and should be better stewards of our land, doing everything within our control to mitigate the chance of future catastrophic flooding. In the coming months, officials from the national level to the local need to take objective looks at just how much humans played a role in intensifying the floods so that we can know best where to make changes in policies and educate the public about ways to they can help. . . .

Within urban areas, the storm water runoff practices of both residential and commercial development should be looked at from the perspective of a flood-devastated community . . ..

With flood-recovery estimates now in the multi-billions, ponder the financial burden of such shortsightedness. Our river has no more patience for it.

Editorial, "Our Role in Lessening Nature's Wrath," The Gazette, June 21, 2008, p. A6.

The Press-Citizen, which has run a number of op ed columns endorsing Mother Nature's Flood Control Plan (see links at the top of this entry), has yet to clearly editorialize in support of such an approach. Although its editorial this morning was at least consistent with it:

Other residents now recognize how the [Normandy Drive] neighborhood has been in a state of danger for decades -- ever since it was built within the floodplain.

That's one of the reasons why some of the Normandy Drive residents themselves may be asking the city to buy out such endangered residential areas. And that's why the city -- especially if FEMA funds are made available -- should give that offer serious consideration.

Editorial, "Residents Had Enough Warning for Evacuation," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 21, 2008, p. A18.

It also ran an additional op ed supporting a much more direct analysis and proposal regarding such things as Greenbelts and wetlands:

Iowa is experiencing flooding yet again and Iowans will be taking actions to reduce and mitigate flooding in the future. Among those options should be the reconstruction of wetlands and -- when cellulosic biofuel production becomes feasible -- the conversion of croplands to certain energy crops that help reduce flooding. . . .

Farmers have lined up to enter land into voluntary wetland creation programs but most are turned away because of a lack of funding. These wetlands benefit society by providing wildlife habitat, cleaning the water and helping to control floods. One acre of wetland can prevent between 1 million and 1.5 million gallons of water from entering a flooded waterway by acting like a sponge. . . .

[O]ne acre of wetland can also filter out most of the nitrogen and sediment from up to 100 acres of adjacent cropland. When the water is slowly released it is far cleaner. . . .

[F]undamental changes in cropping patterns enabled by cellulosic biofuel production, if carefully implemented, could dramatically reduce Iowa's flooding. . . .

Growing prairie would dramatically reduce Iowa's flooding and soil erosion problem. Prairies, like wetlands, reduce flooding because they soak up tremendous amounts of water and release it slowly. Under matching soil types, slopes, saturation and weather conditions, a prairie will retain a far greater portion of rain than a corn or bean field. Prairie protects the land and water far better than conventional corn or soybeans.

Cleaner, more stable streams benefit society in other ways as well. With prairie, streams that dry up and die in the dry season are more likely to continue flowing. More desirable game fish would repopulate Iowa's steams and migratory waterfowl could head north out of Iowa healthy rather than malnourished, and our waterways would be more pleasant and safer for recreation.

Flooding is a problem of small impacts spread over many acres. Solutions therefore can come in the form of many small changes spread over many acres. Shifting a significant number of acres of corn and beans to prairie energy crops would dramatically reduce the amount of floodwater flowing off our fields. . . .

Andrew Hug, "Reducing Iowa's Recurrent Floods," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 21, 2008, p. A18.

State29 has a couple more blog entries well worth reading, State29, "Rebuilding It As Greenspace," June 20, 2008, and State29, "The 500 Year Flood Plain Myth + Stupid Spending," June 21, 2008 (with a sensible and serious proposal for where the new federal building in Cedar Rapids should be located).

John Barleykorn commented on yesterday's blog entry, "I think that many of us are looking at issues like storm water runoff and conservation design. We have to re-think conventional curb and gutter urban design standards." He goes on to mention and link to an intriguing commercial firm that I intend to check out.

And for those who consider themselves friends of or stakeholders in the University -- or would just like to help out -- here's a word from UI President Sally Mason that speaks for itself and requires no commentary from me:

To University of Iowa Alumni, Friends, Contributors, and Hawkeye Fans across the world:

Your University is facing what may be the greatest challenge in its 160-year history.

Many people have contacted us asking us how they can help, and in response we're offering a way to do so from wherever you may be.

Unprecedented flooding throughout Eastern Iowa has already impacted our entire arts campus and much more -- including beloved landmarks such as the Iowa Memorial Union, the UI Museum of Art, our music and theatre buildings, and Hancher Auditorium.

Although it appears the flooding on campus has crested, the high water will still inflict significant damage to the more than 16 UI buildings that took on water. The Iowa River is slowly receding, but it will take months and years for the campus to fully recover.

You can help by making a gift online today to the UI Flood Relief Fund. Please go online to http://www.givetoiowa.org/floodfund to lend your support. Gifts of all sizes are needed and appreciated, and our first priority is to assist UI students and employees who have been displaced from their homes by the flooding. After addressing these most immediate human concerns, we will use contributions to the fund (as available) at my discretion to address other areas of flood-related need throughout the campus.

I encourage the UI community and Iowans generally to help –- whether through volunteering or other sharing of resources –- as they can with the relief efforts for those parts of the state most affected by the flooding. A good place to start in assisting our friends in Johnson and Linn Counties is by visiting www.corridorrecovery.org.

The University of Iowa community has always been far larger than our physical campus, and the Hawkeye spirit has overcome many challenges in the past. I am confident this University will emerge stronger than ever before. UI students, faculty, staff, and community members showed tremendous teamwork and resolve in last week's massive sandbagging efforts. If you'd like to join them in helping us rise above this crisis, please visit http://www.givetoiowa.org/floodfund.

Our heartfelt thanks for all of your encouragement, and for your ongoing generosity.
ON IOWA!

Sally Mason
President
The University of Iowa

P.S. For the most up-to-date information on the UI and the Flood of 2008, and for a large gallery of photos, visit the University's flood information web site at http://uiflood.blogspot.com/.

# # #

Greenbelts and Floodplains

June 20, 2008, 8:15 a.m.

Attitudes Are Shifting
On June 16 I wrote of "Greenbelts, Greenways and Flood Prevention." While I suffer no illusion about the impact of that little blog entry, the fact is that since then there has been a growing chorus of new attitudes about Greenbelts, conservation, and smart use of floodplains.

When I was clerking for a Fifth Circuit judge in Houston and complained about the air quality I was informed, "You smell that, Boy? That's the smell of money." It's still the smell of money in Houston. But Houstonians' attitudes are changing -- even about oil.

Houston, Texas, is one of the largest, most spread out and sprawling, unplanned and unzoned cities in America. But this morning NPR had a feature on how $4.00 gas is causing even Houstonians to rethink the desirability of exchanging a little planning for their "Texas freedom." "Houston Mayor Gauges Impact of Traffic," Morning Edition/National Public Radio, June 20, 2008.

And so it is that the flooding that's caused the State to declare over 80 of Iowa's 99 counties to be disaster areas has finally captured our attention, and got us thinking that maybe some of the environmentalists' ideas about Greenbelts, Greenways, planting "filters" along rivers -- and devoting floodplains to parks, forests and wetlands (rather than regularly flooded homes and businesses) -- may have been pretty smart ideas after all.

How else can you explain this morning's Press-Citizen's op ed page with columns by Bob Elliott and Karen Kubby both singing in harmony?

Karen Kubby writes:

I've heard some conversation in the community about changing our floodplain ordinances to prevent residential rebuilding or new construction, even if built one foot above the 100-year flood plain. Some communities across the nation have taken this step and turned their floodplains into recreation areas. This allows the floodplain to maintain its function of absorbing and holding water during flood events, creates public spaces around waterways and provides recreation and transportation paths.

Tragedy was turned into an economic boon in these cases.

When Idyllwild was built in the 1990s, Susan Horowitz and I voted "no" because of this issue. We wanted to discuss the cost and benefits of revising the floodplain ordinance. The majority ruled. Idyllwild was built, and the floodplain ordinance was not reviewed.

Karen Kubby, "Affordable Housing and Floodplain Management," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 20, 2008, p. 15A.

Bob Elliott confesses:

In addition to being a disaster, this devastating flood is a learning experience. So I hope our battle with the Iowa River is teaching us a lesson.

In recent years, I paid attention to environmental activists about the importance of such things as floodplains. But I was listening with something of a jaundiced ear.

Well, I'm not yet a born-again environmentalist, and probably not eligible to wear an official tree hugger badge. But my eyes and ears are being opened.

For one thing, I'm more aware of problems with building on a floodplain or doing anything with it other than leaving it as nature intended. . . .

After the painfully disturbing reality of the past few weeks, clearly we need to be really careful when messing with Mother Nature. . . . [W]e get the short end of the stick when we attempt to do battle with tornadoes and floodwaters.

So given the benefit of hindsight, it appears Iowa City shouldn't have allowed development of homes and churches in the northside Idyllwild and Normandy Drive areas.

Bob Elliott, "Learn Lessons From the Flood," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 20, 2008, p. A15.

Gregory Johnson commented in an email:

I'm encouraged to see that others are thinking about widening the green areas around the Iowa River.

When I was in Chicago, we had wonderfully pleasant weather on Monday and walked in the water on the beach. The next day it was cold and dangerous to even be near the lake. Waves were crashing against the shore furiously. The beach was closed. Fortunately no property was damaged. No businesses were closed down. No residents were displaced. Why? Because Chicago has established beautiful parks, beaches, and trails along the lake shore.

I think Iowa City and other communities should do the same. Putting parks and trails in an area subject to flooding doesn't mean that parks and trails aren't as important as businesses. The point is that they are easier to clean up after flooding. Parks aren't "mission critical." It wasn't until this flood that I realized how many of this city's critical resources are in flood areas:

* The entire office complex for the Johnson County Administration Building
* The pure water processing plant
* The waste water processing plant
* The central University of Iowa Computing Center
* The Power Plant
* The Hydraulics Lab
* The entire source for steam (heating and cooling system) for the entire campus

If the above resources are knocked out, the entire city would need to be evacuated. . . .

Some sports require large amounts of open space (and open green space) such as tennis, golf, soccer, baseball, football practice, and other such things. Why not have these in the low lying areas. Instead, the football practice field was high and dry while the critical infrastructure of Iowa City and the University of Iowa was under water.

(And see his "Proactive Flood Containment and Disaster Planning - Responding to the Iowa Flood of 2008.") Nor are the advantages of Greenbelts and Greenways limited to their ability to reduce or eliminate flood damage through wiser use of floodplains.

They also contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gases and the size of our "carbon footprint." Here are excerpts from the latest science on the relationship between the flood damage we've just suffered and "global warming":

If you think the weather is getting more extreme, you're right — and global warming caused by human activity probably is the reason, according to a report released Thursday by a panel of government scientists.

The report comes as the Midwest copes with record rainfall and catastrophic flooding.

There is strong evidence the increasing frequency of extreme rain, heat, drought and tropical storms is caused by global climate change, according to the report from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

Larry Wheeler, "Scientists: Weather extremes consistent with global warming," USA Today, June 19, 2008. The hard copy Press-Citizen had a brief version this morning as "We May Be Cause of Weather Woes," p. 7A. A full, early version of report is U.S. Climate Change Science Program, "Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate," August 16, 2007.

When even Bob Elliott and scientific reports that make it through the Bush Administration agree there's a problem -- and, more important, a solution -- it's time for all of us to abandon levies, rebuilding in floodplains, and sandbagging and get behind Mother Nature's flood control plan.

Where to start? (1) Find out more about Greenbelts at GO IOWA!, http://resourcesforlife.com/goiowa, and (2) work to pass the conservation bond issue on the November 4, 2008, ballot.

# # #