SHELBY – Flooding has been a topic of concern in the city of Shelby for more than 100 years.
Waters spilling from the sides of the Black Fork River, a tributary of the Mohican River, have made the city vulnerable to flooding for more than a century. Two major floods have devastated the city of Shelby in that time, the first in 1913 and the second in 2007.
Progress has been made in recent years to mitigate flooding in the city, including the creation of a subdistrict and the commission of a study to determine flooding solutions.
However, the most recent efforts to solve Shelby’s flooding problem have been rejected by the citizens themselves.
In 2011, representatives from Shelby, Richland County and the Shelby Floodplain Management Commission asked the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) to reactive the Black Fork Subdistrict and to develop a multi-jurisdictional flood damage reduction plan.
MWCD enlisted the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to install gauges on the Black Fork River to measure how it reacts during rainfall. This allowed USGS to create a model to predict how various flood reduction plans might decrease the potential for flood damage.
Since then, local officials along with community leaders, the MWCD and engineering experts have been analyzing these findings and creating scenarios to reduce flooding in the Black Fork Subdistrict. The next step was asking the community for their input.
In May 2017, a group of property owners within the Black Fork Subdistrict attended a meeting called by the MWCD to voice concerns on how proposed flood control systems might affect their land. Many left the meeting more frustrated than when they arrived.
Meetings with property owners since then have left a similar taste. So much so, that the “Stop the Shelby Dams” Facebook group was created in April 2017 campaigning against dry dams as one potential flooding solution.
“Their proposed solution does not ‘FIX’ the flooding problem – it just RELOCATES it,” the group claims.
The dry dams in question are officially called “regional detention basins,” with the purpose of intercepting flood waters and decreasing the flow of water downstream. These basins would require earthen embankments, which would require the acquisition of property and/or easements, according to the MWCD.
However, the dry dams are only part of a potential solution. In the fall of 2017, the MWCD incorporated the dry dams into three proposed scenarios that take a comprehensive approach to addressing Shelby’s flooding problem.
Scenario one would create five dry dams, incorporate floodplain benching which would excavate and lower the land immediately adjacent to the Black Fork to provide additional capacity for flood waters, replace nine bridges and culverts to increase their capacity to handle larger flood events, and remove log jams and other debris to improve the water-carrying capacity of the river.
Scenario two would create three dry dams, incorporate floodplain benching and log jam removal, and replace nine bridges and culverts. Scenario three would create only one dry dam, incorporate floodplain benching and log jam removal, and replace 17 bridges and culverts.
The next step in the process is to solicit input from those living and working in the Black Fork Subdistrict on which proposed solution the community would like to see. Based on public comment during meetings of Shelby City Council over the past few months, the answer would be none of them.
“There’s not a farmer in here or person that lives outside of Shelby that doesn’t sympathize with the flooding that goes on,” said Dave Krichbaum during a standing-room-only meeting of Shelby City Council on Dec. 4.
“All of us lose crops when that goes on, and we lose, too in that scenario. I think what we’re all asking, there’s no reason why this can’t be looked at in phases.”
Krichbaum’s point has been echoed multiple times in subsequent council meetings, and materialized through the creation of the Facebook group, the “Black Fork Clean-Up Project.” The group was created in September 2017 as a grassroots effort to clean the Black Fork River and has raised over $200,000 towards its efforts as of Jan. 16.
“I believe it is the wrong thing to do at the current time,” said Patrick Bovia, whose land would be affected by the creation of a dry dam, on Dec. 4. “Give the Black Fork Clean-Up Project an opportunity to be able to get these water levels down, clean the dams, get rid of the sand bars and let the water flow the way it’s supposed to.”
The MWCD has emphasized that while cleaning the Black Fork River will improve water-carrying capacity, that alone will not adequately prevent major flooding. The Black Fork channel, even when cleared of debris, is not large enough to handle the amount of water flow generated in 2007 or even in small storms since without widespread flooding.
Similarly, according to the MWCD, simply replacing bridges and culverts may ease flooding but not enough to prevent the devastating impacts of a 100-year flood. However, combining these improvements with dry dams does significantly decrease the potential for flooding along the Black Fork.
“Cleaning the channel is important but has the least impact on lowering flood profiles,” said Boris Slogar, chief engineer of the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, via email. “Replacing bridges and culverts has a greater impact but is still not enough. To significantly reduce flooding and keep most of downtown Shelby from flood inundation, we must also build dry dams to hold and slowly release the huge volumes of water generated by large rainfall events.”
Councilman Nathan Martin also emphasized the need for an entire flood reduction plan instead of simply clearing the river of debris.
“All of our flood models assume the channels are clear of debris,” Martin said on Dec. 4. “To assume that if we did this in phases that all of our problems will magically go away is incorrect, because of the assumptions that go into the models to begin with.
“If the models assume that the channels were as the channels are today, then absolutely clearing out the debris would make a great deal of sense,” Martin continued. “But the models, and the assumptions in those models, assume that those channels are clear of debris. That is why the damming is brought out as a part of the overall solution, because it’s based off of those models.”
These statements from the MWCD and Martin do not convince residents in the Black Fork Subdistrict.
“I don’t know if Mr. Martin has been out to the Black Fork, but I think it would be worth your while to go out and see what’s being done,” said Tom Clabaugh, whose property would be affected by a dry dam, on Dec. 4. “You can have engineering models – I’ve done modeling, I’ve seen modeling – and you can make it say whatever you want. It’s in their best interest to make it say what they want it to say.”
“The model was put together by globally recognized, unbiased and objective scientific experts in water resources: The United States Geological Survey (USGS),” Slogar countered via email. “USGS provides verified data and facts, and do not provide opinions or take a position on a flood reduction project or strategy.”
Still, there remains a general tone of distrust between property owners and the MWCD. Many land owners have expressed frustration that the MWCD has changed plans multiple times, and cannot provide an estimation of cost of the dams to land owners.
“One thing they always told us at the land owner meetings was they were collecting information because they were concerned, and they were going to go back and look at other options,” Krichbaum said at Shelby City Council on Jan. 16.
“When you think about the option they come up with, the option they added was the Stiving Road option where they took 11 people’s houses,” he said. “I think that shows a lack of concern on their part about people.
“They’re very difficult to deal with in terms of getting them to give you a clear answer on things,” Krichbaum continued. “And I don’t think you want to partner with somebody like that, because you’re not that way.”
Slogar explained only one proposed dam location would require the acquisition of homes and buildings in the Stiving Road area, whereas five other proposed dam locations would require the acquisition of land only. A final project scenario has not been chosen yet.
“The Subdistrict would work with a professional appraiser and the landowner to determine fair market value for either a purchase and/or an easement acquisition,” Slogar said. “Federal and state laws are in place to assure an owner’s property rights are protected during this process.”
Slogar also noted that estimated assessment costs, which would be used to pay for construction and ongoing maintenance of whichever Flood Reduction System is put in place, are currently being developed and would be shared with the public in the summer.
“By law, any proposed solution cannot happen if the costs outweigh the benefits,” he said. “The team is working to quantify costs and benefits and will provide that information to the public.”
Multiple residents suggested to Shelby City Council on Jan. 16 that the city maintain control of the project, and allow Project Coordinator/Floodplain Administrator Joe Gies to lead the operation.
“(MWCD) is far too powerful, they have way too much authority, and they have way too much money,” said Lanny Hopkins. “We don’t need the dams, we need the Black Fork cleaned, we need it kept clean and we need the bridges replaced over a period of time. Don’t partner with these people, keep the control yourself.”
The problem with the city of Shelby controlling a flood mitigation project, according to Gies, is the boundaries of Shelby itself.
“The city can only do anything inside the city limits,” Gies said. “There have been many efforts to do something to solve flooding, but we’re limited to what we can do in town. It needs to be more of a regional effort, because the solutions they come up with need to stop the water before it gets to town.”
This problem was exacerbated on Jan. 16 when the city discussed an informal quote from Tawa Tree and Lawn Care Services from Ottawa to clean parts of the Black Fork on city property. The city would only be responsible for the parts of the river actually on city property, explained Councilman Garland Gates.
“Clearly the city will take responsibility for its property, and I don’t object to Tawa doing that work on city property,” Gates said. “I also don’t object to them doing it on private property. My concern is who’s paying, because public monies cannot be expended on private lands.”
At the Jan. 1 meeting of city council, Gates referenced other methods of funding to assist communities with logjam removal, like the MWCD Debris Removal Program. According to Slogar, a public entity such as a Soil and Water Conservation District can pursue these funds by completing a grant application available directly from MWCD.
If approved, the local public entity would then procure any necessary permits, secure access to the property, and hire a local contractor to perform the work. However, there is a catch.
“These grants are available for areas within MWCD’s jurisdictional area, which does not include the city of Shelby and a significant length of the Black Fork River downstream of Shelby,” Slogar said.
On Jan. 1, members of Shelby City Council unanimously passed a resolution of support for the Black Fork Clean-Up Project and requested the MWCD board to assist in the clean-up project. Nine other townships in the surrounding area of Shelby have passed similar resolutions of support.
“I think it’s common sense to support an effort to do something right now,” said Councilman Charlie Roub on Jan. 1. “We need to do something, and cleaning the Black Fork is going to show we support that effort, that we’re going along with at least part of that project. We need to stand behind these people, they’re trying to do some good and we need to show that respect that.”
According to Slogar, the MWCD does, in fact, support the clean-up project.
“We applaud the local efforts to clear logjams in the Black Fork,” he said. “Should the Black Fork Subdistrict move forward with its proposed solutions, which include logjam removal, this local effort could potentially reduce some of the initial project cost. Unfortunately, debris removal alone will have minimum impact upon Shelby’s flooding problems.”
The next steps for the MWCD in the Black Fork Subdistrict project include property surveys, completing the benefit/cost analysis and developing estimates for possible assessments. In addition, Slogar said, the MWCD will explore private and public funding sources to lower assessment costs.
The public will have an opportunity to interact with and ask questions of the MWCD over the summer during public meetings. Slogar will also be present at the Feb. 5 meeting of Shelby City Council.
In the fall, the MWCD will ask the city of Shelby whether they recommend proceeding with an official flood reduction plan shaped by technical and community input.
Building bridges to reduce flooding comes easy to the MWCD. Building bridges of trust has proven harder, but Slogar and his team are committed to being fair and transparent as the project moves forward.
“We understand there will continue to be some differences of opinion regarding study recommendations but believe the community shares a common goal to reduce future flood damages,” Slogar said.
