Guest commentary
NIPSCO's report to the FERC

Floods are the most destructive, most frequent and most costly natural disasters on earth. Too often in the case of nonflood control or run-of-river dams like ours, the downstream residents are put at risk by companies more intent on wringing the most electricity possible or bowing to the whims of more influential residents residing on a lake, rather than keeping water levels low enough to slowly absorb incoming runoff.

Norway and Oakdale dams are loaded weapons aimed down river. Downstream residents understand that floods will happen and we have learned to live with them as best we can, even those of us who were not in the "old" flood plain.

The NIPSCO flood abatement study, released last month, rejects the idea of lowering Lakes Shafer and Freeman in advance of a predicted flooding. "The lakes simply cannot hold enough water and they are not large enough to prevent or significantly lessen floods downstream of the dams, said NIPSCO. That attempting to delay the downstream flooding by holding back the water, "may result in grave consequences" once the water is finally released.

NIPSCO's standard response in this speculative report doesn't hold water when compared to the available information.

Measures can be taken to reduce the speed, size and duration of floodwaters, such as improving drainage, controlling erosion, and restoring meanders and wetlands. Where new housing developments with manicured lawns have replaced the undergrowth causing unprecedented water runoff, flood absorption areas for that displaced water should be created. Where proper flood control management and planning is in place, hopefully flood mitigation will be successful, but where planning is inadequate or worse, non-existent, the effects undoubtedly will be disastrous.

NIPSCO still believes its preparation was adequate, but because the threat was underestimated and its lack of proper communication with local agencies and residents, that was not the case. Better preparation is almost always possible, but sometimes commitments to invest in risk-reducing measures for lowprobability; high-consequence events like this compete with more immediate demands with faster and more visible payoffs.

With proper flood/water management in place even delaying peak flows one hour could mean the difference between a few dozen homes being flooded and hundreds more. Indeed, using the dams new record incoming/outgoing flow rates (run-of-river), if the lake levels were lowered 5 feet in advance (and the flood gates were closed) it would take 3 hours and 24 minutes to fill Lake Shafer's 1,291 acres and 3 hours and 1 minute to fill Freeman's 1,547 acres.

However, who in their right mind would close the gates at a time like that?

One solution or option then is to start with the lakes lowered 60 inches or some arbitrary number that takes silt and sediment into consideration and then allows the water to continually pass through at a reduced flow rate. For example, starting with Lake Freeman lowered 60" and opening the flood gates to 20,000 cfs in a continuous flow (instead of the record 31,000 cfs) would take 8 and a half hours to fill it 60 inches to Freeman's normal level. The same criteria applied to Lake Shafer and letting out 18,000 cfs instead of 24,087 cfs, would take 12 hours and 50 minutes to fill 60".

If this process had been in place and used, using the new reduced incoming flow rate from Shafer - (releasing 18,000 cfs) into Freeman - (releasing 20,000 cfs) it would now take Freeman a full 19 hours to fill 60". Filling the lakes over a longer duration could buy that crucial extra time that could make all the difference to those people in front of that loaded gun downstream.

Would 19 hours be enough time for the news coverage and emergency response teams to inform homeowners that flooding was imminent? Would 19 hours be enough time to gather your belongings, move your vehicles, and find alternate lodging? Would 19 hours be enough time for the weather to abate, negating the need to open the floodgates to maximum capacity?

Perhaps the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will require NIPSCO to re-evaluate its position that everything's fine, otherwise it's time to move along. Nothing to see here, no changes necessary. Good luck next time.
Edward Priest
Battle Ground
(Carroll County)