[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Appendix P REI 17L Aoooo Z4 -S 6A %-8 R43 1983 CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS FRMAY- JUNE � Boston WSO issued weather forecast for weekend rain, heavy at times � NERFC issued weekend "Flood Potential Outlook" about 3 pm � Light rain began about 8 pm � Heavy rain began about 11 pm SATURDAIC. JUNE 5 � Boston WSO issued "Urban Small River and Stream Flood Advisory" about 4 am � NERFC issued "Flood Warning" for Yantic River about 6 am � Hartford WSO advised of possible flooding in eastern Connecticut at 6 am � NERFC issued flood warning for southern New England at 11 am � Thousands of residents requested assistance from local fire departments to pump-out flooded basements � Local flooding began in late morning and early afternoon � State police, State DOT, and local police and officials began barricading local roads and bridges as they flooded or threatened to flood � OCP Emergency Operations Center activated at 4:30 pm � Towns began issuing evacuation warnings for residents of flood-prone areas � Seven people died in flood-related incidents throughout the day � Essex began evacuating Falls River area about 10 pm � Milford City Hall flooded by Wepawaug River about 10 pm � NERFC offices in Bloomfield relocated because of basement flooding about 11 pm SUNDAY-TUNE6 � Bushy Hill Dam on Falls River in Essex burst about 12:30 am � Governor ordered National Guard to assist in emergency activities � Four people died in flood-cclated incidents � NERFC offices returned to normal operation about 1 pm � Dept of Health Services urged residents of flooded areas to boil drinking water and toss out flood-damaged food � More than 1,300 people evacuated from their homes on Saturday and Sunday, and emergency shelters established by individual towns, the Red Cross and the Salvation Army � DEP issued "no contact" notices for water bodies contaminated by discharges from damaged or overloaded sewerage systems MONDAY-JUNE � Governor UNeill declared a state of emergency and announced he would seek federal assistance � Towns began reporting estimates of flood losses to OCP; State agencies began preparing estimates of flood damages � Governor toured damaged areas by helicopter � DOT reported that it had reopened 40 of the 70 sections of State roads that had been closed on Saturday and Sunday � DOT signed no-bid contracts with construction companies to begin removing debris from damaged bridges TUESDAY- JUNE a o NFIP office opened in New Haven to process claims for flood insurance WEDNESDAY JUNE 9 � Governor sent telegram to President informing him of intent to seek Federal disaster declaration � SCS began letting contracts for emergency stream stabilization work THURSDAY- JUNE 10 o OCP estimated flood damages at $276.7 million: $204.691 for private, non- agricultural damages; $2.5 for agricultural damages; and $69.491 for public damages o Governor submitted written request for disaster declaration SATURDAY-JUNE12 o Corps of Engineers began inspecting dams for flood damage MONDAY- JUNE 14 o President Reagan approved request for disaster declaration: Individual Assistance for all of Connecticut; Public Assistance for New London, Middlesex, New Haven, and Fairfield Counties (CONTINUED ON INSIDE BACK COVER) 'Du r,cEALIZING THE RISK: A HISTORY OF THE JUNE 1982 FLOODS IN CONNECTICUT I I LIZING THE RISK> A HISTORY OF THE JUNE 1982 FLOODS IN CONNECTICUT Honorable William A. O'Neill, Governor of Connecticut Stanley J. Pac, Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection Hugo F. Thomas, State Geologist Benjamin A. Warner, Director and Director, Natural Resources Water Resources Unit Center Allan N. Williams, Project Leader Charles Berger, Jr., Civil Engineer Cynthia Rummel, Project Supervisor Prepared by: L. R. JOHNSTON ASSOCIATES Westport, CT 1983 Published by the Natural Resources Center Water Planning Report No. 7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the scores of individuals in over 30 Federal and State agencies, 60 Connecticut municipalities, and several private organizations and businesses who consented to interviews and provided information for this report. In addition to Allan Williams and Cynthia Rummel who supervised the project, special thanks are extended to: Charles Berger, Jr., Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Water Resources Unit David Curtis, National Weather Service, Northeast River Forecast Center Paul Gibb, Connecticut Office of Civil Preparedness Stuart Mahler, Connecticut Office of Policy and Management This report was prepared under the direction of Larry R. Johnston, with the assistance of Judith A. Singer, consulting Geologist/Hydrologist. Ms. Singer conducted most of the interviews with municipalities and prepared the municipal maps. Mr. Johnston conducted the interviews with State and Federal agencies and prepared the final text. Funding for this project was provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, State Assistance Program, under a Cooperative Agreement with the Con- necticut Department of Environmental Protection. The substance and findings of this work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of all statements and interpretations. Such statements and interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal government. ii SUMMARY On the weekend of June 5-6, 1982, Connecticut suffered its worst flooding since 1955. Heavy rainfall and flooding were widespread throughout the State, but were most severe in south central Connecticut where up to 16 inches of rain fell in about 48 hours, with most rainfall occurring during a 24 hour period. Floods and flashfloods occurred on most of the small and medium size streams. New peak flows were established for many streams and flood frequency recurrence intervals of 200 years and greater were common in small basins. Large rivers, such as the Connecticut and Housatonic, experienced only minor flooding. Flooding on many of the smaller rivers was made much worse by the full or partial failure of one or more dams. The most dramatic and concentrated damage in the State occurred when the Bushy Hill Dam in Deep River burst, sending a wall of water down the Falls River that caused or contributed to the failure of six other dams and devastated the Centerbrook and Ivoryton sections of Essex. Throughout the State, 17 dams failed and another 31 were damaged. No flood control structures were damaged. The Corps of Engineers estimated that its flood control structures prevented $160,573,000 in flood damages. Although the National Weather Service provided advance warning of the potential for flash floods, the weather advisories and bulletins issued did not indicate the seriousness of the flooding that was to occur. With the notable exception of Norwich, town officials did not have information that would lead them to issue evacuation notices much in advance of the actual flooding. In most cases, town officials relied upon past experience and monitoring of rising waters in local streams. As a result, emergency actions by local officials were very effective in saving lives and preventing injuries, but were largely ineffective in reducing property damages. Of the eleven people that died from flood-related causes, most were the result of careless actions: either rafting down flood swollen streams or crossing flooded bridges. Improve- in Federal, State, and local procedures for identifying flash flood potential and local procedures for providing residents with information on proper preparedness actions could result in fewer losses from future floods. iii Damages to public and private property were extensive, with communities in Middlesex and New Haven Counties suffering the greatest losses. Roads and bridges were the most obvious casualties. About 70 sections of State roads were temporarily closed because of washouts; destroyed or damaged bridges; and water, silt or debris on the roads. Seventeen State bridges had to be replaced and another 29 repaired. Hundreds of sections of municipal roads were damaged, and more than two dozen local bridges were destroyed or severely damaged. Much of the road damage was caused by erosion from torrential runoff and embankment failures due to saturated soils. Bridges and culverts that failed were mostly undersized and constructed before current standards were adopted. The State-owned railroad system was also severely damaged: the mainline Conrail system in West Haven, sections of the Waterbury Branch between Milford and Waterbury, and the Valley Railroad from Essex to Haddam. Amtrak lines were washed out in several places between New Haven and New London. Damages to other public property were relatively modest. The greatest damages to State property were to State parks and forests where sections of roads, bridges and beaches were washed out. Additional municipal losses were primarily to recreational facilities, several municipal sewerage systems, and drainage systems. Waste discharges from damaged or disrupted sewerage systems required issuance of "no-contact" notices for several rivers and harbors and the temporary closing of shellfish beds in some communities. More than 15,000 homes were damaged, most suffering only minor basement flooding. About 1,500 homes received moderate damage and 37 were destroyed, including 25 in Essex. Over 400 commercial and industrial business establishments were damaged. Most business losses were minor, but individual losses reached as high as $15 million. Additional private property losses included dams, automobiles, boats, and water, telephone and electrical systems. Total damages were initially estimated at $276.7 million, including $204.7 to homes, businesses and other private property, $2.5 to agriculture, and $69.5 to public property. Connecticut was declared a major disaster area by the President (the entire State for Individual Assistance and the four southern counties for Public Assistance), making available a number of Federal iv financial assistance programs for individuals and businesses and Federal reim- bursement of 75% of eligible flood losses for State and municipal property in the southern counties. The State enacted emergency flood relief legislation to pay the 25 percent non-Federal share of public disaster assistance in the southern counties and 25 percent of losses to public property in the four northern counties. Over 4,000 individuals seeking financial assistance registered at Disaster Assistance Centers. One hundred and fourteen units of local govern- ment, two nonprofit organizations, and nine State agencies received full or partial reimbursement for their losses through Federal and State financial assistance programs. Revised estimates of flood losses were prepared only for public property and agriculture; no updated estimates were made for damages to homes, businesses, and other private property. Based on the revised estimates, total flood losses appear to be between $230 and $240 million. Eighteen months after the floods, recovery was largely complete, though still proceeding. Most of the remaining work involved replacement of temporary bridge repairs with permanent new structures and minor road, bridge, and culvert repairs. Final inspections and audits of public restoration projects may not be completed for another year. Several privately-owned dams were still being repaired or rebuilt. Two families still remained in temporary housing provided through a Federal/State program. Several potential flood control projects were under study by the Corps of Engineers and Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protec-- tion. State agencies had initiated a number of measures to more clearly identify areas at risk of flooding, improve local flood warning programs, provide technical assistance to towns and businesses, and improve disaster response procedures. V CONTENTS CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS Inside Front & Back Covers SUMMARY iii LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES x CHAPTER 1: HYDROLOGY AND METEOROLOGY 1 R a inf all 2 Antecedent Rainf all 2 June 4-7 Rainfall 2 Groundwater Levels 6 Flooding 8 Small Stream Flooding 11 Major River Flooding 12 CHAPTER 2: EMERGENCY ACTIONS 13 Flood Warnings 14 National Weather Service 14 State and Local Warnings 20 Flood Fighting and Evacuation 23 State Activities 23 Town Activities 28 Emergency Debris Removal and Road and Channel Repairs 32 Roads and Bridges 32 Stream Channels 32 CHAPTER 3: FLOOD LOSSES 35 Initial Loss Estimates 36 Preliminary Estimates 36 Estimates for Disaster Declaration 37 Final Loss Estimates 39 Deaths and Injuries 39 Municipal Losses 39 State Losses - 43 Federal Losses 50 Private Losses 52 Water Pollution 65 Damages Prevented 67 Flood Control Structures 67 Floodplain Management 67 Flood Warnings 70 Summary of Losses 71 CHAPTER 4: DISASTER ASSISTANCE AND RECOVERY 73 The Recovery Process 74 Federal Disaster Declaration 75 Emergency State Legislation 79 Assistance to Individuals 80 Temporary Housing Program 80 Vi Limited Home Repairs 82 Individual and Family Grant Program 83 SBA Physical Disaster Loans 84 Connecticut Housing Loan Program 84 Disaster Unemployment Assistance 84 Crisis Counseling 86 Non-Disaster Assistance Programs 86 Assistance From Private Organizations 86 Assistance to Businesses and Agriculture 87 SBA Loans 87 Business Emergency Relief Program 87 Technical Assistance 88 Federal Crop Insurance 89 ASCS Emergency Conservation Program 89 Assistance to Individuals and Businesses 90 Flood Insurance 90 Tax Abatements 91 IRS Casualty Losses 91 Assistance to Municipalities 92 Southern Counties 92 Northern Counties 98 State Agencies 98 FEMA and State Public Assistance 98 Federal Highway Administration 98 Stream Improvements 99 CHAPTER 5: POST-FLOOD PROJECTS AND INVESTIGATIONS 103 Hazard Mitigation Reports 104 Interagency Flood Hazard Mitigation Report 104 Section 406 Hazard Mitigation Implementation Measures 106 National Weather Service Disaster Survey Report 107 Dam Safety Program 108 Dam Safety Program 19valuation Report 108 Comprehensive Dam Safety Program 108 Repair of State Owned Dams 110 Flood Control Studies and Projects 110 Statewide Survey of Flood Problems 110 Corps of Engineers Investigations 110 Soil Conservation Service Studies FEMA Flood Insurance Studies Yantic and Farm Rivers Study Additional Initiatives 112 Flood Forecast and Warning Systems 112 Workshops and Conferences 113 Federal-State Flood Critique 113 Acquisition of Flood Damaged Properties 113 Technical Assistance to Industry 114 Crisis Counseling 114 CHAPTER 6:SUMMARY OF FLOOD DAMAGES AND RESPONSES IN SELECTED MUNICIPALITIES 117 Interviews with Municipal Officials 118 Flood Warnings and Evacuations 118 Mapping of Flooded Areas 121 vii Flood Losses 121 Recovery 121 Disaster Assistance Process 121 Summaries for Selected Municipalities 122 Chester 122 Deep River 124 Essex 124 East Hampton 126 Haddam 128 Hamden 128 Killingwotth 131 Lyme 131 Milford 134 Naugatuck 136 Norwich 136 Woodbridge 141 APPENDIXA: REFERENCES AND FOOTNOTES APPENDIX B: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GAGING STATIONS RECORDING OF PEAK FLOWS, JUNE 1982 APPENDIX C: REQUEST FOR MAJOR DISASTER DECLARATION APPENDIX D: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO TOWNS AND STATE AGENCIES BY FEMA AND OPM APPENDIX E: FEDERAL/STATE AGREEMENT FOR DISASTER ASSISTANCE APPENDIX F: FLOOD RELATED LEGISLATION Public Act 82-1 (June Session) Special Act 83-17 (June Session) Public Act 83-38 (June Session) APPENDIX G: SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON THE JUNE 1982 FLOODS APPENDIX H: ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE REPORT viii LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Precipitation Stations Shown in Figure 1.1 1.2 Daily Precipitation Totals for Storm of June 4-7, 1982 1.3 Hourly Precipitation, Storm of June 4-7, 1982 1.4 Ground-water Measurements in Selected Observation Wells in Connecticut Before and After Storm of June 4-7, 1982 1.5 Measurements of Peak Flow of Streams in Connecticut for Storm of June 4-7, 1982 1.6 Flood Stages For Major, Main Stem Rivers Recorded by the Northeast River Forecast Center 2.1 Contract Descriptions for SCS Exigency Projects for Storm of June 4-7, 1982 3.1 Flood-Related Deaths, Storm of June 4-7, 1982 3.2 Total Municipal Flood Losses by Category of Damage 3.3 Total Reimbursable Flood Damages and Emergency Expenditures by State Agencies 3.4 Total Reimbursable State Losses by Category of Damage 3.5 State Bridges Damagcd During Storm Of JUne 4-7, 1982 3.6 State Bridges Destroyed During the Storm of June 4-7, 1982 3.7 State-Owned Dams Destroyed or Damaged During Storm of June 4-7, 1982 3.8 Municipal and Privately Owned Dams Destroyed or Damaged During Storm of June 4-7, 1982 3.9 Damages Prevented by Corps of Engineers Flood Control Projects, Storm of June 4-7, 1982 3.10 Summary of Flood Losses 4.1 Registrations for Personal and Business Assistance at Disaster Assistance Centers 4.2 Assistance Provided Through Temporary Housing Program 4.3 Statistical Report on Individual and Family Grant Program 4.4 Connecticut Business Emergency Relief Program 4.5 State Reimbursement of Taxes to Towns that Granted Tax Abatements 4.6 SCS Non-Exigency Projects 5.1 Project H20 Summary (Crisis Counseling) 6.1 Summary of Municipal Responses ix LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Isohyetal Map of Rainfall for Storm of June 4-7, 1982 1.2 Recurrence Intervals of Peak Flows of Streams in Connecticut for the Storm of June 4-7, 1982 2.1 Nortbeast River Forecast Cetitef "Flood Potential Outlook", Ffifty, June 4, 2:51 pm, 2.2 Flood Warning for the Yantic River, Saturday, June 5, 5:55 am 2.3 Special Weather Statement for Connecticut, Saturday, June 5, 9:15 am 2.4 Flood Stage Forecasts for Major Rivers, Saturday, June 5, 11:49 am 2.5 Connecticut Emergency Warning System Flow Chart 2.6 Evacuations and Red Cross Emergency Shelter Centers 2.7 Location of SCS Exigency Projects for Storm of June 4-7, 1982 3.1 Municipal Flood Losses Reimbursed by FEMA, OPM and FHWA 3.2 Damages to State Roads and Bridges during Storm of June 4-7, 1982 3.3 State Property (Except Roads and Bridges) Damaged during Storm of June 4-7, 1982 3.4 Estimated Housing Damages During Storm of June 4-7, 1982 3.5 Commercial and Industrial Damages During Storm of June 4-7, 1982 3.6 Agricultural Damages During Storm of June 4-7, 1982 3.7 Municipal and Privately Owned Dams Destroyed or Damaged during Storm of June 4-7, 1982 3.8 Sewerage Systems and Water Bodies Affected by Storm of June 4-7, 1982 3.9 Location of Corps of Engineer Flood Control Projects in Connecticut 4.1 Location of Centers Providing Disaster Assistance to Flood Victims 4.2 Location of SCS Non-Exigency Projects 6.1 Municipalities Interviewed 6.2 Flood Damages in the Town of Chester, Storm of June 4-7, 1982 6.3 Flood Damages in the Town of Deep River, Storm of June 4-7, 1982 6.4 Flood Damages in the Town of Essex, Storm of June 4-7, 1982 6.5 Flood Damages in the Town of East Hampton, Storm of June 4-7, 1982 6.6 Flood Damages in the Town of Haddam, Storm of June 4-7, 1982 6.7 Flood Damages in the Town of Hamden, Storm of June 4-7, 1982 6.8 Flood Damages in the Town of Killingworth, Storm of June 4-7, 1982 6.9 Flood Damages in the Town of Lyme, Storm of June 4-7, 1982 6.10 Flood Damages in the City of Milford, Storm of June 4-7, 1982 6.11 Flood Damages in the Town of Naugatuck, Storm of June 4-7, 1982 6.12 Flood Damages in the City of Norwich, Storm of June 4-7, 1982 6.13 Flood Damages in the Town of Woodbridge, Storm of June 4-7, 1982 X CHAPTER I HYDROLOGY AND METEOROLOGY [leavy Rain Floods Homes, Forces Road Closings .nUnued from Page I feet, flooding the Norwichtown The weather service also con- defense officials a., the state inches in Providence, R.I. m rary refuge in an :_ were [email protected] we In addition to flootung along the .,_ Is" anearby homes. Norwich tinued an urban small river and ter d" rt, le in r late turlay PO . ,I delfense wo ers s ugh as Yantic. Nauvaturi, a-1 W-t W- qvi stream flood warning thro vets .shelter at the Sheridi d h- until the storin knocked ay e-M-ndbalf = Pundav it not long the . 'rI xwe to the school. n It* stem the nts who could not find " der k New Haven Ma mporary lodgings with friends latives 0 7 re were then moved to 'Xblem7'dn tdhel , Golfe Street Arroo p' Rain Swamps State aide Cl,,d ,, ca sed by the y DiT.11%imdal?L fly e River. F onnecticut National G rd theft.-ithoors f I toua 0' nved e @ujfmeniin Ne, ere aven H 11'ate3 'ur y @ity he said. omes Evacuated, Roads Closed United Illumins ats prepared for possible ddi XgXrs w onal floodinR. Gov. Williarn A. O'Neill super- :'Id5electrical .:ter N w Hai By EDMUND MAHONY and DAVID H. RHINELANDER @ed state civilergpa ne rning off power Courant SWf Writers ations from TO Nesill 1011). 1. ist Lyme Saturday afte it, New Haven, W 0;- A from the state Xn in a[,aven and North 'ernoon to prev A driving StOM paused on its march up the was not known whether anyone was in the canoe ar!ford Saturday night, tric shock in bc East Coast Saturday, soaking southern New Eng- when it capsized. 0 Neill said 1,046 National merged electrical I-A m;fh , -A [email protected]'all, flooding houses and Torrential rains were blamed for an accident ;acuallon of more than that killed five Burrillville, R.I., youths about mid- t the state. Heavy rain is night Friday in Burrillville. The teenagers'ear was Said worst rainstorm Monday. swept of the road by high winds and rain and hit a ier Service in Windsor tree, killing five of six youths in the car, Burrillville !ord of 4.18 inches of rain police officer Thomas Brissette said. of this century Air art for the 24-hour About 500 people in Naugatuck and 400 in An- iturgay. The previous re- sonla were evacuated to schools and armories as in June was 3.72 inches the Naugatuck River overflowed its banks, state By ROBERT HAMILTON civil defense officials said. Both communities de- Staff Writer -e were searching for a clared states of emergency. Armories in New Ha- .knto the Wharton Brook ven, Norwich and New Britain also were opened ile tubing. for evacuees. Roaring flood waters knocked out phones and electrical power, ;as riding on a large inner The Park River in Hartford was approaching closed factories. threatened bridges, filled cellars, and tore up Then it w 9 punctured by flood stage Saturday night and authorities were riverbanks and roadsides in the Windham area over the weekend, 'he other%ree were res- preparing for the possible evacuation of residents during the worst spring rainstorm this century. iver, but Poggio had not near both the north and south branches. Several families along Old Willimantic Road 'n Franklin were s ended the search at 7:45 In New Haven, about 35 people forced from forced to abandon their homes today as the [email protected] floodwaters their homes by floodinK along the West River took exposed a broken sewer system in that area of town. Health @ Were investigating an officii this r staybRain-Swollen Rivers Turn Streets Into Torrents Alt) invesi By KArnMW L WALD b 111111dreft of oft stool, or, do "Mcle 111"M avmy to do wr6 11 Ill -00M I i Ikod , P willir 9pKWwnwKw1rcftTbm yd'ei " so =all that they hardly dw roat, crashed throtio a low stme well The Iftuptuelt Rhw Me bdo likely NEwRAvFN,[email protected]$_qtw"if1k8 m v the title wen turned Into danger and Wided In a ditch where It remained danimed and deepened, wA althou& It the % m extension of the river," saw POW @Pats. this afternoon. winideldeld stomhad and overflowed its banks in places, It did net rive:- Pepe Jr., - he stood on his front porch in 14" Ra"N6 Vensen Bit =0 driver's seat covered with chunks of pose any major threat. Will In the Westville sectlori this afternoon, ftt by 4 P.M. Satvqday the soundfroto pwmm=L 7W Nations] Mard*dckly rdbolab fterr looking at Wast Rock Avenue, whten the ob outside We house was "Ilke I I Zv"Dwed b4p trucks capable of evacuating a borders the West River. theliesch." pie over flooded roadg, and the conne Most of the water bad b* "I've bewl be" 30 [email protected], ad r* OWdy afterward, the issililhtiorlided Cross qwned shelters convenient W the Route am car was overturned and mother ww am It like this, he sald. point. *a wanuted by Natiolial Guards- affected arms. But there was little Oist conce was wedged up against a van that bad Mg to toppled talspbons P". wtecked mal. Mr. Jobnam and his father Individual hom: - [email protected]; could do to pro- grotood, cars, ond other debris am" around elected to :%:Vwever, No protect tOdthOMAGIVIS. have;9; wheel* f%r" fee off the water .recalioulay an a rickety the nalobartmod. Mr. Brium left In the their home. Mat reffft #[email protected]=,-7Iw=== fence. @4" of asphalt were Itu aftsmoon; Saturday W*ft, the Fin Do. pound tered show, and the top 13 inches ar partmW1 evacuated some of him isdab. loaded sbotvm 6:@ in am of looterl, 11te ripavement and soll had bow wasind bors with the aid of rapes, so that they am MR& prepassitions in am ths lmumnm on F700& dange away in many ff". wouldnotbeew dmaybyth0currmt. water should! rift mom IV* wers to take to the high - 1 1. 1 bad a An Late Saturday aftw=m the r"W Cw8carriledisralleds =vat kit - blankets. cans of Kww h Offood by the UA had exteinded Itself as far " Mr. [email protected] inclift hfimnmt, OOMIM within a tis addition to the West Rtvw, WM -I don't know if it would have dam wq fe* Ocked can an of adjacw putiall! lots VW " he said. rood lisouranok wilddh Is no not. recorc the cellar door, MW there It wu... : blocks. the Littlit [email protected] that aftViochood, tbb wedi. May. of the first noor. -You just Opened am carried them for io mally availt" an the commeffew Rhw In Nauptuck. 14 collon to the sod's flooding to the mot residents, waskeL is vrowhied by the FsderW .h_isald. His mothersaxletster wessevem JUNE 4-7 RAINFALL RAINFALL Light rain began falling in Con- necticut around 8:00 pm on Friday evening, June 4. Heavy rain began about midnight During the first week of June and continued all day Saturday and into 1982 a large low pressure system formed Sunday morning. Lighter rain continued over the Gulf states and moved up the Sunday afternoon and evening, and light east coast. The system stalled over rain and drizzle fell over much of the the Virginia/Maryland coast on Saturday, State through Monday. June 5, and its east-northeasterly flow of air brought a large supply of moisture Rainfall amounts throughout the off the Atlantic Ocean resulting in State were high. The central, south prolonged and heavy rainfall throughout central and southeastern parts of Connec- southern New England. The system gradually ticut received from eight to 16 inches moved offshore and further up the coast. of rain for the three day period. The By Sunday afternoon, June 6, it was southwestern, northwestern and northeastern located about 150 miles southeast of areas received generally less than eight Cape Cod. inches for the same period. Total rainfall ranged from a low of 2.68 inches at Long Island, Rhode Island and Falls Village in Canaan to a high of Massachusetts also experienced heavy 16.00 inches at North Lyme in Lyme. rainfall and flooding from this weather system, but Connecticut was hardest Figure 1.1 presents an isohyetal hit. It was the worst spring rainstorm map showing lines of equal precipitation to affect Connecticut this century, throughout Connecticut. This map was with total rainfall surpassing any storm prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey not associated with a hurricane or tropical (USGS) based on rainfall records from storm since the National Weather Service 74 sites in Connecticut and an additional began keeping records in 1904. New 28 sites in New York, Rhode Island and rainfall and stream discharge records Massachusetts.' These sites are listed were established in many areas of Connec- in Table 1.1. ticut. Daily Pirecipitation. Although the total rainfall occurred over a period of about ANTECEDENT RAINFALL 72 hours, the highest single day totals occurred on Saturday, June 5th. Some The effects of the June 4-7 rainfall of the highest 24 hour totals included: were compounded in many locations by Essex (10.65 inches), Southington (9.40 up to four inches of rain that fell inches), Woodbridge (9.12 inches) and on parts of the State the previous week. East Haven (9.01 inches) (2). The 24 This earlier rainfall left soils saturated hour precipitation for a return period and many small reservoirs filled to of 100 years is between 7 and 8 inches or near capacity (1). and the 48 hour precipitation for the same return period is between 9 and 10 inches (3), indicating that the June 5th rainfall greatly exceeded a 100-year storm event in many parts of the State. 2 FIGURE 1.1: ISOHYETAL NAP OF RAINFALL FOR STORN OF JUNE 4-7ff v !L 96 X4.72 X77-4 91 X E46 X3. 6 92 .9 x 6- 6 4. 3 A-- p 11kASSAWSETTS I @%T 3001- 420 01Y x 64 1 72 61 .4 6. X 7 39 1 x76 '\'X4 1125 6.4 X7. 7 x 7.1 9. 9 6. 6.3 87 x x x x 49 x 1 2.73 0. X 3 x 7 3 77 60 X9.7 xm- 78 x 17 A. Sill 410 01Y 11,11, . . ...... . . M lie" LAND. x IANG __10 SCALE MILES [email protected] Lim of equal rainfall and amount in inches. Source: U.S. !L Hartf 30 40 KILOMETER x 4.72 Station location, order number as shown in table and 0 10 110 6 amount of rainfan measured for total storm, in has TABLE 1.1: PRECIPITATION STATIONS SHOWN ON FIGURE 1.1 STATION LOCATION I STATION LOCATION IRMS CONNECTICUT 1 Barkhamated Barkhamsted 6.55 38 Shuttle Meadow New Britain 8.80 2 Brooklyn Brooklyn 7.16 39 McDonough Rev Hartford 6.25 3 Nepaug Reservoir Burlington 8.30 40 Bulls Ridge New Milford 3.90 4 Falls Village Canaan 2.68 41 Rocky River Dam New Milford 7.50 5 NBC 15 Canaan 4.0 42 Norfolk 2W Norfolk 3.80 6 NBC 4 Chaplin 7.23 43 Lake Gaillard North Branford 10.55 7 NRC 8 Cheshire 12.04 44 Norwalk Gas Plant Norwalk 4.00 8 South Cheshire Cheshire 13.00 45 Norwich Public Norwich 7.80 9 NRC 11 Clinton 12.25 Utilities 10 NRC 12 Colchester 8.80 46 Lake Wepawaug Orange 12.00 11 NEC 3 Coventry 6.63 47 Trap Falls Shelton 9.70 12 Danbury Danbury 5.78 48 NRC 23 Simsbury 8.10 13 Lake Saltonstall East Haven 11.85 49 Southbury Southbury 6.60 14 Easton Lake Easton 8.13* 50 Southington Southington 10.35 15 URC 10 Essex 14.40 51 NBC 24 Stafford 6.10 16 Hemlock Reservoir Fairfield 7.44 52 Stafford Springs 2 Stafford 5.40 17 Putnam Lake Greenwich 3.03 53 Bridgeport WSO AP Stratford 5.70 18 Groton Groton 8.90 54 West Thompson Dam Thompson 4.98 19 Lake Menuckatuck Guilford 8.98 55 Torrington Torrington 4.85 20 Cockaponset Ranger Haddam 13.26 56 NBC 1 Vernon 5.40 Station 57 Wallingford Wallingford 10.60 21 Lake Whitney Hamden 11.82 58 Waterbury 1 Waterbury 7.15 22 Mt. Carmel Hamden 11.60 59 Lake Konomoc Waterford 11.50 23 NRC 5 Hampton 8.10 60 Saugatuck Weston 5.80 24 Hartford, Brainard Hartford 5.90 61 Hartford WSO AP Windsor Locks 7.50 Field 62 NEC 2 Winchester 5.35 25 NEC 7 Hartford 7.60 63 NEC 6 Windham 6.60 26 West Branch Hartland 5.20 64 Lake Dawson Woodbridge 12.25 27 Jewett City Jewett City 5.10 65 Bloomfield Bloomfield 8.11 28 Jewett City 3 ESE Jewett City 5.80 66 Hartford Resvr 6 Bloomfield 10.60 29 Shepaug Dam Litchfield 6.30 67 New Haven New Haven 10.10 30 Lake Hammonasset Madison 8.80 68 Thomaston Dam Thomaston 6.30 31 Mansfield Hollow Dam Mansfield 6.30 69 Al Jeter Lyme 12.00 32 Storrs Mansfield 7.30 70 Gene Bibliani Chester 15.00 33 NRC 9 Meriden 8.10 71 Gary Reynolds North Lyme 16.00 34 Middletown 4W Middletown 8.30 72 NRC 16 West Granby 8.14 35 Milford Milford 7.55 73 Reservoir 6 West Hartford 9.74 36 Stevenson Dam Monroe 10.0 74 Round Pond Ridgefield 4.11 37 Wigvam Morris 5.50 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N9W YORK 75 NWS I Millbrook 3.35 80 NWS 5 Westbury, L.I. 1.92 76 NWS 2 Glenham 2.73 81 NWS 6 Setaukey, L.I. 5.48 77 NWS 3 Yorktown Heights 2.30 82 NWS 7 Patchogue, L.I. 7.60 78 NWS 4 Pleasantville 1.50 83 NWS 8 Bridgehampton, L.I. 10.78 79 Airport White Plains 2.04 84 NWS 9 Greenport, L. 1. 12.30 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MASSACHUSETTS 85 Airport Great Barrington 2.46 92 NWS 15 Springfield 6.40 86 NWS 10 Stockbridge 2.80 93 NWS 16 Amherst 3.53 87 NWS 11 West Otis 3.15 94 NWS 17 Ware 4.72 88 NWS 12 Chesterfield 5.41 95 NWS 18 Southbridge 6.09 89 Knightville Dam Knightville 6.30 96 Airport Worcester 4.74 90 NWS 13 Westfield 8.90 97 Buffumville Lake Buffumville 4.73 91 NWS 13 Holyoke 6.46 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RHODE ISLAND 98 NWS 19 Woonsocket 6.25 101 NWS 21 Kingston 9.39 99 NWS 20 North Foster 7.00 102 Airport Block Island 4.94 100 Airport Providence 4.16 *Not shown on Figure 1.1 Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Hartford, CT. (Data from CT Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Center, and Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, National Weather Service) 4 Daily precipitation totals for offices by observers. The rainfall the 36 official National Climatic Center listed for each date is for the 24 hour rainfall stations are shown in Table period preceding the observation time. 1.2. The daily readings from these stations are not completely comparable Hourly Precipitation. Hourly rainf all because of the varying times at which totals for the 12 recording precipitation the gages are read and rainfall amounts gages that are part of the official reported to the National Weather Service National Weather Service, National Climatic TABLE 1.2: DAILY PRECIPITATION TOTALS FOR STORN OF JUNE 4-7r 1982 DAILY PRECIPITATION (INCHES) OBSERVATION STATION DAY OF MONTH TOTAL TIME 4 5 6 7 4-7 Northwest 8am I Barkhamsted Trace .40 5.37 .78 6.55 7am 40 Bulls Bridge Dan .07 2.46 1.35 3.88 7am 4 Falls Village .01 .02 2.12 .53 2.68 8am 42 Norfolk 2 SW .04 Trace 3.21 .53 3.78 7am 41 Rocky River Dam .40 .02 5.66 1.38 7.44 noon Shepaug Dam .10 .60 3.85 .85 5.40 8 am 55 Torrington 4.10 .75 4.85 no on 37 Wigwam Reservoir .07 1.90 3.13 .73 5.83 7 pm Woodbury Trace 5.30 .85 .44 6.59 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Central 8am Ansonia RE .04 1.32 9.35 1.15 11 84 6pm 2 Brooklyn 5.91 .25 6:16 8a 3 Burlington .81 6.13 1.36 8.30 8all 20 Cockaponset Ranger Stn 2.05 10.47 .74 13.26 8am 11 Coventry - - - - 7pm 12 Danbury .05 3.78 1.61 .39 5.83 8am 24 Hartford-Brainard Fld Trace 1.50 3.50 .91 5.91 midnight 62 Hartford WSO AP .03 5.88 1.55 .04 7.50 8 am 31 Mansfield Hollow Lake .03 2.70 3.25 .30 6.28 no on 34 Middletown 4 W .06 3.15 4.26 .89 8.36 4 pm 22 Mount Carmel - - - midnight 45 Norwich Pub Util Plt .46 6.11 1.26 Trace 7.83 8am 74 Round Pond .12 89 2 51 .59 4.11 5pa 60 Saugatuck Reservoir 3:01 2:04 .32 5.37 8am 38 Shuttle Meadow Resvr .11 8.56 8.67 8an 52 Stafford Springs 2 .01 2.30 3.22 .39 5.92 7am 36 Stevenson Dam .73 7.94 1.32 9.99 8am 32 Storrs .06 2.87 4.07 .29 7.29 8am 73 West Hartford Trace 1.41 6.82 1.51 9.74 8am 54 West Thompson Lake .02 2.35 2.14 .49 5.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coastal midnight 53 Bridgeport WSO AP .48 4.79 .83 .05 6.15 8 am 13 East Haven Saltonotall 1.66 9.01 1.17 11.84 midnight 18 Groton .60 6.30 2.00 .04 8.94 4 pm 67 New Haven 7.00 3.00 10.00 8 am 44 Norwalk Gas Plant 3.00 1.05 4.05 8 am 17 Putnam Lake Trace .10 1.93 1.00 3.03 5 pm Stamford 5 N Trace 1.32 1.41 .22 2.95 1 Totals for each day are given for the 24 hour period prior to the observation time. Source: Climatological Data for New Enitland. Volume 94, No. 6, June 1982. NOAA, National Climate Center, Asheville, N.C., and Bruce Whyte, NWS, NERFC, Bloomfield,.CT. 5 Center hourly precipitation network GROUNDWATER LEVELS are shown in Table 1.3. Except for the Cockaponset Ranger Station in Haddam, Prior to the June 4-7 storm, ground these recording precipitation gages water levels were in the normal to low are all located outside the area of range. After the storm all measure- greatest rainfall. The highest rainfall ments were in the high range, as shown recorded in one hour was at the Cocka- in Table 1.4. ponset Ranger Station, which measured 1.4 inches/hour between 9 and 10 pm Saturday. Although the times of heaviest rainfall varied across the State, the recording stations indicated that rainfall in excess of .2 inches/hour generally occurred between 11 pm Friday and 1 am Sunday. TABLE 1.4: GROUND-WATER MEASUREMENTS IN SELECTED OBSERVATION WELLS IN CONNECTICUT BEFORE AND "TER STORM OF JUNE 4-7t 1982 Latest pre- Date Water w:torm of level Date ter- pre- in ft of level storm Preci- Period Location of below mesa- mesa- mesa- Pita- of observation land ure- ure- ure- tion record well surface ment ment ment Change (in) (yrs) Remarks Fairfield 6.43 6/14 8.21 5/25 + 1.78 7 16 Highest June of record 2nd highest of record Groton 7.35 6/07 14.94 5/26 + 7.59 9 25 Highest of record Madison 12.56 6/14 16.37 5/26 + 3.81 12 1 do North Haven 11.77 6/14 15.26 5/26 + 3.49 11 7 do North Haven 41.31 6114 53.66 5/25 +12.35 11 7 Highest June of record North Canaan 9.08 6/09 9.48 6/02 + 0.40 4 25 Newtown 1.27 6/14 5.17 5/25 + 3.90 7 16 Highest June of record 2nd highest of record Southington 19.18 6/14 21.18 5/25 + 2.00 10 7 2nd highest of record Salem 6.18 6/14 9.74 5/25 + 3.56 11 3 Highest of record Stonington 1.70 6/06 7.60 5/29 + 5.90 7 7 do Torrington 4.76 6/07 6.47 5/31 + 1.71 5 23 do (Bedrock well) Woodbury 20.14 6/14 22.57 5/25 + 2.43 6 33 Highest June of record Source: Water Resources Conditions in Connecticut, June 1982, USGS, Hartford, CT. 6 TABLE 1.3: HOURLY PRECIPITATION, STORK OF allNE 4-7, 1982 HOURLY PRECIPITATION STATION DATE A. M. HOUR ENDING P. M. HOUR ENDING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MMI- Bridgeport VW AP 4 .04 .01 .01 .01 .04 .27 .10 AS 5 .05 M .05 .06 .50 .30 .33 .33 .26 .26 .34 .38 .43 .37 .12 .15 .20 .30 .15 .08 .02 4.79 53 6 .11 .23 .04 .05 .10 .16 .03 .02 .04 .04 .01 83 7 .03 .02 :05 Cockaponset Ranger 4 .1 .1 .3 .5 Station 5 .3 .1 .4 .5 .1 .3 .2 .1 .1 .2 .3 .2 .2 .3 .2 .2 .2 .3 .4 .5 .7 1.4 .8 .4 8.4 6 .2 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 .1 .2 1.1 20 7 .1 .1 Hartford Reservoir 6 5 .4 .1 .2 .3 .2 .3 .2 A .4 .4 .5 .8 .5 .4 .2 .5 .4 .5 .6 .4 .2 .2 8.1 6 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 .1 .2 .1 .1 .2 .3 .2 .1 .1 2.0 66 Hartford Brainard Fld 4 .02 .04 .24 X 5 .22 .18 .16 .16 .13 .13 .21 .10 .12 .25 .11 .11 .14 .17 .16 .09 .08 .15 .19 .20 -.39 .43 .06 .10 4.04 24 6 .05 .06 .03 .02 .03 .02 .03 .03 .02 -04 -09 -09 -09 -09 -09 -08 -09 -05 1.00 7 .01 .01 Hartford WBO AP 4 .02 .01 .03 5 .17 .23 .03 .02 .04 .14 .27 .27 .19 .23 .35 .50 .40 .27 .31 .25 .07 .15 .20 .30 .40 .53 .34 .22 5.88 62 6 .07 .28 .18 .10 .12 .06 .05 .05 .05 .06 .03 .05 .07 .04 .09 .10 .03 .01 .07 .04 1.55 7 .01 .01 .01 .01 .04 Jewett city 4 .1 .3 .4 .8 5 .2 .2 .4 .3 .3 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 .2 .3 .3 .2 .1 3.8 27 6 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .7. 7 .1 Mansfield Hollow Lake 4 .03 .06 .07 .24 .40 5 .41 -V .28 .45 .47 .25 .10 .10 .09 .09 .08 .07 .08 .14 .21 .17 .14 .09 .10 .13 .30 .33X .25 5.02 31 6 .20 .06 .06 .05 .05 .12 .03 .02 .01 M .03 .01 .01 .67 Narfolk 2 SW 5 .05 .21 .15 .17 .20 .31 .23 .20 .20 .20 .20 .15 .13 .13 .18 .10 .05 .05 .02 2.93 6 .02 .02 .01 .01 .01 .03 .02 .02 .02 -02 .02 -02 -02 -06 -05 -05 -05 .02 -01 -02 -02 -02 '02 .02 .58 42 7 .01 .03 .02 .02 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .16 Rockville 5 .1 .3 .3 .5 .3 .1 .1 .1 .1 -1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .3 .3 .5 .6 4.8 6 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 1.3 7 .1 .1 Stafford Sprl%s 2 5 .1 .3 .9 .5 .4 .1 .1 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 .3 .3 .7 4.9 6 .2 .1 .2 .1 .1 .2 .1 .2 1.2 52 7 .1 .1 Thomaston Om 5 .1 .1 .4 .2 .3 .5 A .2 .3 .5 .4 .3 .2 .4 .4 .4 .1 5.5 6 .1 .1 .7 68 West Thaaipson Lake 4 .1 .2 .3 5 .5 .3 .2 A .4 .1 .1 .1 .1 .3 .3 .3 3.4 54 6 .4 .1 .1 .9 7 .1 .1 .2 Source: Hourly Precivitatiog Date, Vol 32, No. 6, June 1982, Dept of Commerce, NOAA. National Climatic Center, Asheville, VC. 7 The area east of the Housatonic River (about 70 percent of the State) FLOODING experienced floods equal to or greater than the 10-year recurrence interval. South central to southeast Connecticut The heavy rainfall caused floods (about 25 percent of the State) experi- and flashfloods on innumerable small enced floods equal to or exceeding the streams and rivers throughout most of 100-year recurrence interval. Numerous Connecticut. Record flooding was recorded small streams in the south central area for many small streams in the central had flooding greater than a 200- or and south central parts of the State. even 500-year recurrence interval. Figure 1.22 shows the resulting recurrence intervals of peak flows across the State. An .41 [email protected] z JAI + Moodus River flooding Falls Road just below the Moodus Reservoir in East Haddam. (Photo by Bill Plyler) 8 FIGURE 1.2: RECURRENCE INTERVALS OF PEAK FLOWS OF STREAMS IN CONNECTICUT FOR THE STORK OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 V V w 420 00' '-\N) 420 00' 50 N 00 CA t-D op . . ... . ..... . . . . . . . . ............ A, 10 00' 410 0 . .... . ..... . ... --------- - .... . . . . . ... ... i nmr ISLA% 0 IP SCALE @D 30 MILES -50- Line of equal recurrence interval and value, in years Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 0 10 zo 30 40 KILOMETER t Hartford, CT TABLE 1.5: MEASUREMENTS OF PEAK FLOW OF STREAMS IN CONNECTICUT FOR STORM OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 Discharge for Upstream IDO- a no 500 -yea r Alevation Icu;- recurrence interials USGS ln f'e, Drainage Unit r: rc Qlw V500 $t ati- Bridge [email protected] MIG, [email protected] art r f I I [email protected]) if [email protected] fi2) (@tt"S&)l (ft3/s) (ft3/s) Stream and location Umber MUmber .1 .9) (ft /S) /s/m year Remarks Clark Creek at Haddam 83.3 171D 2.59 660 500 1100 1700 Measured at Rt 82 culvert. connector Rt 9 t 0RT 9A. Coginchaug River at Middlefield 01192B83 146.4 2110 29.5 - 51) - Measured by current meter. Deep River at Deep River 006?0 (Rt 9A) 40.4 Aug 5.02 W 300 1050 1540 Neasured it Rt 8o. Devi, River at Da,ep River - 42.7 1420 6.71 212 300 110C 1600 Measured at Bridge St. E. Branch Eightmile River near N. Lyme 01194SOO 64.4 5170 22.3 - 1000 Elghtmile River at North Plains 01194200 68.9 5200 20.1 1000 Elevation at USGS gaging station Oll 94 100 - 57.8 ft above NG VD. Measured at 01194100 (Rt 156). Falls River at Essex 38.0 13400 13.5 >1000 Measured at Rt 9. Fouraile River at East Lyme 01127800 03321(Rt 51) k/ 9.24 1280 3.48 368 400 830 1350 a/ Gage height; at Rt 51 flow - 368 , 5.16 - I ro ft3/,. Q500 - 2000 ft /s, QIOO . 1230 ft3/s. Freshiwater Brook at Enfield 01183994 105.0 575 10.8 10 Measured at dam dovinstream. Harbor Brook at Meriden 01196250 k/174.1 743 8.32 30 bl Elevation at doienstream side of bridge. Indian River at Clinton - 23.9 2750 6.60 IODO Measured at Glenwood Road. Indian River near Clinton 01195100 b/ 43.1 2600 5.64 1000 bl Elevation at dovn5tream side of bridge. Lattsie,% Brook near Lett Lymse - 00367 (Rt 1) 42.4 2990 18.5 162 200 2500 3760 measured at Pit 95. Latiamers Brook near Montville - 01402(Rt 161) 115.9 2210 12.6 175 200 ZDDO 33DO Measured at Silver Falls. Menunketesuck River near Clinton 01195000 02673(kt 145) 39.1 3210 11.2 289 350 2120 3800 Measured at Cobbs Bridge Road upstream from USGS gaging statiop .01195000; Drainage area ; 15.1 mi t Rt 145, floW - 4WD ft /s. Q100 - 3000 [email protected]/S. Menunketesuck River at KillingwOrth - 01134(Rt 80) 170.0 3420 9.79 349 350 2700 4500 Measured at Kelseytwn Rlservoir; drainage a me - 6.28 ml at Rt 8D. Hill River at Hamden 01196620 92.1 5600 24.5 - Soo - - Measured at Clark Pond 0.5 miles d-stream. Kill River near Hamden 01196626 40.2 6760 36.4 Soo Measured at Late Whitney. Neck River near Madison 01195200 16.7 1040 6.55 200 Pattocork Brook near Chester - - 02691(Rt 148) 153.6 1560 6.93 225 500 IDDO 1600 Measured at Fit 148, 2nd bridge upstream of At 9. bridge 01374. Pattaconk Brook near Chester 02694(Rt 148) 133.1 1700 7.63 223 Soo 1200 1700 Measured at exit 6, northbound off r..p from Rt 9. Ponset Brook at Higganum 01137(ltt 81) 98.0 2020 6.73 300 3DO 1450 2470 Measured at Migganten Reservoir. Quinnipiac River at Wallingford 01196500 - 33.3 8200 LID - 350 - - Measured by current meter. Roaring Brook near Lyme - 02508(Rt 82) 65.7 $300 7.22 644 )1000 1340 2000 Measured at ISM ft upstream from Fit 82 at HA!lyme; da am' 31s. .1 failed upstre IDO 1350 ft A. QSDO - 2000 ft Salssain River near East Hampton 011935DO 70.1 18500 102 - 200 - - ation at downstream side of I;v su Vid A. me red at Rt 6. Waterhouse Brook near Chester - 02696IRt 148) 47.6 440 1.22 361 300 332 484 Aesured at $it 9A. Wepawaug River near Milford 01196700 43.5 5020 18.4 273 400 3540 5400 Measured at Rt 95 upstream from USGS gaging station 011967DO. Weptitaug River near Orange 01327(st; 121) 91.0 4370 12.7 326 400 2800 4660 Measured at Old Grassy kill Road. Willoav Brook At Nahe Britain 01192692 1D9.4 IIDD 6.65 - so - - - Yantic River at Yantic 01127SOD 109.3 9.9do 90.0 150 - - Measured at Conrail bridge. Source: Water Resources Data, Connecticut, Water Year 1982. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report CT-82-1; Corrections provided by L.A. Weiss, USGS, Hartford, CT. 10 Despite the record flooding, there This small storm surge may have contributed was very little accurate delineation to the severity of flooding at coastal of flooded areas or high water marks. locations by slowing discharge from State and Federal agencies collected streams (1). The storm surge itself information on flood levels in some did not cause coastal flooding, and, of the river basins they were studying except wbere rivers disebarged to Long (see Chapter 5), but interviews with island Sound, shoreline areas were gener- municipalities indicated almost no mapping ally not affected by this storm. of flooded areas. Table 1.5 and Appendix B provide peak flow data for several streams based on measurements by the U. S. Geological SMALL STREAM FLOODING Survey (USGS). The peak flows and fre- quency data shown in Table 1.5 were Small streams caused the most collected by USGS at the request of f looding. Outside the area of heaviest the Connecticut Department of Trans- rainfall, flooding from these small portation (DOT) at locations near State streams was similar in location and bridges that were destroyed. Direct magnitude to the larger floods that and indirect measurements of peak dis- had occurred since 1955. However, in charge were made at ungaged locations the south central portion of the State near tlaese bridges to supplement the where mote than eight inches of rain data from existing USGS stream gage fell, flooding from the small streams stations. Appendix B presents data was frequently of record proportions. from stream gages maintained.by the In these watersheds, normally flood USGS. prone areas were flooded to a greater depth than previously experienced, and In addition to overbank flooding areas with no previous record of floods of streams, substantial flooding also were also flooded. resulted from inadequate or blocked drainage systems in many urban areas Some of the streams with the most and along roadways. Drainages alongside severe flooding were Eightmile River roadways and culverts across roads were and Roaring Brook in Haddam and Lyme; often inadequate to handle heavy runoff Clark Creek in Haddam; Indian River resulting from the intense rainfall. in Clinton-, Wepawaug Rivet in Orange Ddris, c6pecially branches and uprooted and Milford; Mill River in Hamden; Patta- trees, blocked many small bridges causing conk Brook in Chester; Fourmile River streams to pond and overflow, sometimes in East Lyme; and Falls River in Essex. cutting new channels around the bridges The flooding of the Falls River was and across roads. Excessive runoff made much more severe by the collapse from the intense rainfall also generated of the Bushy Hill Reservoir in the upper rivulets that created gullies and minor reaches of the watershed, which contributed mud slides, particularly in locations to the subsequent collapse of several with steep topography. Basement flooding more small dams downstream. due to high water tables and saturated soil conditions was widespread. Measurements at Bridgeport during the period of flooding showed both high and low tides 1.5 to 2 feet above normal. MAJOR RIVER FLOODING Vcry littlc flooding occurred along Connecticut's major rivers, and they were not the source of much damage. Flood peaks recorded by the Northeast River Forecast Center (NERFC) at its streamlevel gages on the major Connecticut rivers f or which it issues specific flood forecasts are given below in Table 1.6. TABLE 1.6: FLOOD STAGES FOR MAJORF MAIN STEM RIVERS RECORDED BY THE NORTHEAST RIVER FORECALST CENTER STATION PEAK TIM E FLOOD STAGE Farmington River 16.3 f t 1 am & 7 am 6/7 12 ft at Simsbury Connecticut River 20.1 f t 1 pm 6/7 16 ft at Hartford Connecticut River 11.2 f t 7 pm 6/7 8 ft at Middletown Housatonic River 7.7 f t 1 am 6/7 8 ft at New Milford Housatonic River 14.5 f t: 7 am 6/6 12 ft at Stevenson Housatonic River 12.2 f t 7 pm 6/5 12 ft at Beacon Falls Shetucket River 14.5 f t I p m 6/6 13 ft at Willimantic Source: National Weather Service, Northeast River Forecast Center, Bloomfield, CT 12 CHAPTER 2 EMERGENCY ACTIONS Flood cmcrgcncy declarecl ZAGIX an.-Weve sales to be doing ever Nationalt Westlaw Service am a She declared a state"emwipen were, =a= rse swm dintoped up can for 0 inybody.11 ftn coast as hilla n 9.71 b-+- is Saturday eight !FrLrq_ M7 to is Im. th. Of swum Swiday as he tomid the flooded am* arent. to ong. William A. O'NeW declared it andg=ss Under the emerp am at = 0. t= LWAC"m FENCA officials agre "ecticat that he made a pitch S=-. assessment cwJmof)ov to y "rdght toRt prell devastating Minn. word [email protected] asked to dedars ths Deep River Firefloters, He announced that lat would seek aid Reagan. for aide to recover excessive tied to "a broad rot I.A.M1 - Msu.cl the h&r44* luess. ADM ornmm,,. suc saw state recover [email protected] from P114.ty WVX= Olleth and officials local Emergency how the Federal dlillr. fm southrestona [email protected] :=In US" in the wor of Use DeNardis estimai Risk Lives to Save Tlwee be .m M W missft or dad arm Sunday sional district, the it tld =kgkr a"" which drenched the I put spent the lag 'Nun assess, 1111 lues with two more trod" of sanday the situation and I .rlttofd to Clin" had to be abandoned, it was not possible t 12 St felt the obligation red 1100 mullm in By LUCY GUSTAFSON DEEP RIVER - Two me. arid a for the firemen on the east side of the OWS; woman ere rescued at the height Of @ver to reach the car and its occupants Salmon River Overfl w in time, and the boat arrived too late to the disasterous rain storm about mid night last Saturday by two Deep River be of assistance. The car was later 0 lirelighters who risked their lives and towed from under the water by Bar- " Five Families Evacuated plunged into the roaring Deep River at tlett's Garage here. in the Elm Street bridge. Deep River firemen were called out EAST HAKPTON - Five familles Moo-Com Cited about 5.21) p.m. Thursday when a far- were evacuted from Brkfge Street Set- Staff Sgt. Deborah L. 0 Fire Chief Peter Woodcock, in dis. nace backed up at the Cameron home on of Barbara J. and Robert . WakefieW giaht willim the Bairintic Rim Ife 'daughter closing the details of the rescue, Lords Lane here. Murray Zack, spokes- dr-te- gt has bm umed oult. praised the quick thinking and courage man for the fire department. explained @l Unpru itihloi and Andrew Olson, both tUt the fUrnace malfunctioned due to [nig of the basement of the rhere'@ was lots of smoke but Search continues for missing image, ' Zack reported. n were called out on a similar By JOANINE M. PELTON another man wetre riding in was swamped DEP's four-day flood watch Telegram staff writer by water Saturday. A land search on Mon- It looks like the worst is over - as day was called off and state police will cleanup crews anci pumps today try to conduct another search today. at Beach Pond finally ends soak up nearly 10 inches of water that fell A Westport teen-ager was rescued by a in Connecticut during the last three friend on Sunday after she was swept into VOLUMWN - The four-day, arottindthe-clock flood watch at days. a stream called "Dead Man's Creek" in Beach Pond Dam ended early Wednesday morning after the high 7111M persons am Still mitissmig and am Westport, pulling her through a 150-fout water levels of the weekend dropped by almost 10 Inches. drowned atte long underground tunnel. moving waterr However, the earthen dam may receive more attention later -11;- -# [email protected] i. A---. T two - Fvtm atntp r1pnartmont tif FIrivirrurimprital Pirdection State Offers Some Health ]lips for Flood Victims ARTFORD, Conn. (UPI) - Cos. laderit or longer &W then flus, it from or boxes. It is advis. should not put their hands to their properly ve the "stun. Boll One quart of water or '0= Conservented to the o, h- living In flooded Wrt I od in containers and mouth or handle food until their hands ter even as were urged by state health offi- add five drops of bleach and allow it to scaled with screw tops, corks, home have been washed with soap and clean public! waterwasupply. A a Sunday to bod their drinking water stand for 30 minutes before chinkirig. canned or rubberring-sealed jars if water. May severely affect th !ontarnicated arid to to" Out say Drinking polluted water can cause they are submerged in flood winters. Power Outages d-damaged food. hepatitis, dysentery and diarrhea. available water. he Department of Health Services H Because Of the type of Lid, It is very Unplug your appliances. Sometimes When refrigerator or ir Ouse and Household Effects difficult to Properly sallitize this type of power returns at low or fluctuating lev. ature gets above 45 degi cautioned residents to be careful at Draill Or PUMP Out flooded cellars and container and food could be con. els. Having Your appliances on the line should be discarded. Kee leaks from extinguished Pilot Lights hose down with clean water then wash taminated as it is removed from the may harm Your appliances as power is erator and freezer doors from short circuits in electrical ap. the area down with a solution of one cup container. COnWWdaI canned goods restored. Never tie an e nergency gen- freezer or refrigerators fifts. of bleach in 16 gallons of water. Wash ne agency issued the following may be used if the outside of the com- erator into the power system unless a to keep the cold in. Don't Wines: flood-damaged toys in hot soapy water tiliner is washed with a detergent solu- complete separation exists between the zen food if it has been tha and disinfect in solution of clean water tion and then disinfetcW with boiling utility supply and your generator. Un. re-freeze thawed frozen v elfin and Septic Tank System and household bleach. Throw out water or a chlorine solut !OOded Wells should be checked for Stuffed toy, damaged by Water. ion. less a separation exists, power which they will probably suffer Atnination. It debris or silt has en. Wash curtains, clothing and bedding Other Flood Hazards you are not using goes out to the Lines ration in quality. RoasL, d the well, the well should be and May Cause injury to a utility em- may be refrozen if they In hot soapy water and blead when. If your home has been flooded, pilot I r a neighbor. tially frozen. You can ,Ped Until it clears. Disinfect the ever possible. Rugs can be fl=bed With 9- lights may have been extinguished P oyee 0 with two CUPI household bleach clem water, shampooed and air dried. and gas could have accumulated in the Use heat and light with caution. Use ground beef if the ternpe Ld with two gallons of water and abasem care with candies or any open flame. than 45 degrees, but don't Rinse furniture with clean water, di - enL Flooding may also cause Don't use charcoal grills indoors for Be especially careful v it over the well calling. Turn on all infect with bleach if possible. short circuiting of electrical appliances -h Nf ----- ------- heating or cooking and don't use gag egg products. milk and n 13 The record rainfall and flooding warning responsibility for the entire that occurred over the weekend of June State. The Northeast River Forecast 5-6 resulted in the mobilization of Center (NERFC) in Bloomfield is respon- Federal, State and local resources for sible for providing flood forecasts emergency actions. Although warnings for major rivers in Connecticut as well of potential flooding were issued by as Massachusetts and Rhode Island. the National Weather Service (NWS) offices, neither the NW9 nor 9tate and local Initial forecasts of the June officials were fully aware of the extent 4-7 storm were made by the Boston WSFO and severity of flooding that was to Friday morning, June 4, indicating the occur. Consequently, much of the emergency possibility of rain throughout the area, action taken by State and local governments heavy at times. By Friday afternoon was in response to flooding as it happened, the forecast called for heavy rain begin- rather than in anticipation of flooding. ning Saturday afternoon and continuing into Saturday night. The Boston WSFO alerted NERFC in Bloomfield of the heavy rain forecast, and NERFC prepared a "Flood Potential Outlook" statement just before 3:00 pm Friday (Figure 2.1). FLOOD WARNINGS NERFC notified local television stations and the flash flood coordinators in Norwich and Hartford of the possibility NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE of heavy weekend rains. The National Weather Service is The storm moved into the area the primary source of information about sooner than forecast by the Boston WSFO, excessive rainfall and flood potential. and heavy rain began late Friday and Several NWS offices ate normally involved early Saturday. At 3:55 am Saturday in providing weather forecasts and flood the Boston WSFO issued an "Urban Small warnings for Connecticut. The Weather River and Stream Flood Advisory" for Service Forecast Office (WSFO) in Boston its entire forecast area. has primary weather forecasting responsi- bility for Connecticut, as well as Massa- During the early morning hours chusetts and Rhode Island. of Saturday, the Hartford WSO received reports from eastern and southern Connec- Locally, the Weather Service Office ticut of heavy rain but no flooding. (WSO) in Hartford has responsibility Around 5:00 am the Hartford WSO received for providing warnings to the four northern a report from Norwich that the Yantic Connecticut counties of Litchfield, River in New London County was rising Hartford, Tolland, and Windsor, as well rapidly but no flooding had yet occurred. as New London County in southern Connec- The Hartford WSO advised the NERFC hydro- ticut. The Bridgeport WSO has warning logist on call3 of the Yantic River responsibility for Fairfield, Middlesexi situation, and NERFC issued a "Flood and New Haven Counties in southern Connec- Warning" for the Yantic River near Norwich ticut. The Bridgeport WSO is a part-time at 5:55 am (Figure 2.2). At 6:00 am office which normally operates between the Hartford WSO issued a "Special Weather I am anJ 10 pm. When the Bridgeport Statement" advising of a flood warning WSO is closed, the Hartford WSO assumes for the Yantic River in eastern Con- 14 FIGURE 2.1: NORTHEAST RIVER FORECAST CENTER "FLOOD POTENTIAL OUTLOOK", FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 2:51 PN eOSESFHFD LIOUSOO KHFD 041900 FLOOD POTENTIAL OUTLOOK NATIONAL LEATHER SERVICE HARTFORD, CT 02:51 PM EDT JUN 04 1982 ... MORE RAIN THIS WEEKEND ....... AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE ... THIS PAST WEEK HAS BEEN A VERY LET ONE FOR THE THREE SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND STATES. RAINFALL FOR THE WEEK VARIED A GREAT DEAL THROUGHOUT THE AREA. CENTRAL CONNECTICUT AND SECTIONS OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS RECEIVED BETWEEN 4 AND 5 INCHES OF RAIN. RHODE 15LAIlD RVERAGED 3 1/2 INCHE5 FOR THE WEEK. MNY OTHER 5ECTION5 RECEIYED BETWEEN 2 AND 4 INCHES FOR THE PERIOD. LOCALIZED FLOODING OCCURRED IN SOME SECTIONS EARLY WEDNESDAY WHEN THE MOST INTENSE RAINFALL OCCURRED. WORCESTER MASSACHUSETTS RECEIVED 3.17 INCHES OF RAIN IN ONE SIX HOUR PERIOD. AS A RESULT OF THIS RAINFALL ... THE GROUND IN SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND IS OUITE LET. MORE RAIN IS EXPECTED OVER THE WEEKEND. SOME SHOWERS ARE NOW OCCURRING BUT THE STEADY AND HEAVIER RAIN IS NOT EXPECTED UNTIL SATURDAY. IT IS STILL TO EARLY TO SAY HOW MUCH RAIN WILL FALL BUT HEAVY RAIN IS A POSSIBILITY FOR LATE SATURDAY OR EARLY SUNDAY. AMOUNTS OF 1 1,12 TO 2 INCHES IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME WOULD CAUSE URBAN AND DRAINAGE FLOODING PROBLEMS. AMOUNTS OVER 2 1/4 INCHES IN A 3 TO 6 HOUR PERIOD COULD START SOME SMALL STREAM FLOODING PROBLEMS IN SOME SECTIONS OF SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND. ALL INTERESTS ARE URGED TO MONITOR THE LATEST NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FORECASTS FOR THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS ON THIS SITUATION. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS WILL BE ISSUED AS NEEDED. NERFC/CSH FIGURE 2.2: FLOOD WARNING FOR THE YANTIC RIVERr SATURDAY JUNE 5, 5:55 AM BOSFLUHFD LIOUSOO KHFD 051000 FLOOD WARNING NATIONAL LEATHER SERVICE HARTFORD, CT 05:55 AM EDT JUN 05 1982 FLOOD WARNING FOR THE YANTIC RIVER IN EASTERN CT. HEAVY RAINS DURING THE NIGHT IN EASTERN CONNETICUT HAVE CAUSED THE YANTIC RIVER TO RISE NEAR BANKFULL. NORWICH POLICE REPORT AT 5:30 AM TODAY THAT IT WAS JUST WITHIN ITS BANKS. RAIN FORECAST FOR THE DAY WILL MAKE THE RIVER RISE MORE SO THOSE LIVING ALONG ITS BANKS SHOULD KEEP A CLOSE WATCH AND BE PREPARED TO EVACUATE. FORECASTS OF CRESTS WILL BE ISSUED LATER AS RAINFALL AND AMOUNT MORE IS ASCERTAINED. WHM NERFC. BDSFLLHFD 15 necticut and the possibility of flooding Boston WSFO regarding the issuance of in other parts of Connecticut during special flash flood warnings, none were the next 48 houfs (Figure 2.3). At issued. The Bridgeport W90 closed as 8:35 am the Boston WSFO updated its usual at 10:00 pm on Saturday and its forecast to include "Urban small river responsibilities were taken over by and stream flood warnings thru Sunday". the Hartford WSO until 6 am Sunday. (1,4,5,6) At 11:00 am NERFC issued a flood warning for southern New England, including Data Sources for the National Weather specific stage forecasts for major rivers Service. The National Weather Service and quantitative precipitation forecasts uses data from several sources to make (Figure 2.4). Throughout Saturday and rainfall and flood forecasts and to Sunday, the Boston WSFO, Hartford WSO, determine the actual location and duration and NERFC continued to issue updated of rainfall and flooding. These sources forecasts, flood warnings, and special include satellite data, radar, river weather statements. Although there gages and volunteer observers. were discussions between NERFC and the FIGURE 2.3: SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT FOR CONNECTICUT, SATURI)AY, JUNE 5, 9:15 AM BOSSPSBDL WOUSOO KBDL 051500 -BOSSPSBDL SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT FOR CONNECTICUT AND HAMPDEN COUNTY OF MASSACHUSETTS NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HARTFORD CT 915 AM EDT SAT JUNE 5 1982 ...FLOOD WARNING FOR THE YANTIC RIVER IN EASTERN CT. ...URBAN AND SMALL RIVER/STREAM FLOODING ELSEWHERE EXCEPT FLOOD ADVISORY FOR NU HILLS OF CONNECTICUT AND BERKSHIRES OF MASSACHUSETTS THROUGH SUNDAY... HEAVY RAINS HAVE CAUSED THE YANTIC RIVER TO OVERFLOW THIS MORNING. MORE HEAVY RAIN EXPECTED TO CONTINUE THROUGH SUNDAY CAUSING SOME SMALL RIVERS AND STREAMS TO OVERFLOW THEIR BANKS IN OTHER PARTS OF CONNECTICUT AND HAMPDEN COUNTY OF MASSACHUSETTS WITHIN THE NEXT 48 HOURS. PERSONS LIVING NEAR SMALL RIVERS AND STREAMS SHOULD LISTEN TO THE LATEST ADVISORIES FROM THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE AS ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND FORECASTS ARE ISSUED THROUGHOUT THE DAY. GILLETTE SENT 930 AM 16 FIGURE 2.4: FLOOD STAGE FORECASTS FOR MAJOR RIVERS, SATURDAY, JUNE 5, 11:49 AN 0BOSFLUHFD RLIUS KHFD 051600 FLOOD WARNING NATIONAL LEATHER SERVICE HARTFORD, CT th49 AM EDT JUN 05 19B2 FLOOD WARNING FOR SOUTHERN NEU ENGLAND NEARLY 4 INCHES OF RAIN HAVE FALLEN IN SOME SECTIONS OF EASTERN CONNECTICUT AND RHODE ISLAND IN THE LAST 24 HOURS. TUO TO THREE INCHES HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS. SMALL RIVERS AND STREAMS IN EASTERN CONNECTICUT, EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS, AND RHODE ISLAND ARE RISING RAPIDLY. IN CONNECTICUT .... THE YANTIC RIVER IS NOW AT FLOOD STAGE AND RISING IN kRODE ISLAND SMALL STREAMS ARE REPORTED TO BE HEAR BANKFULL AND RISING. IN MRScACHUSETTS THE CHARLES RIVER IS HOU HEAR FLOOD STAGE AND RISING. HEAVY RAINS ARE FORECAST TO CONTINUE THROUGH TONIGHT AND INTO SUNDAY. AN ADDITIONAL TUO TO THREE INCHES OF RAIN ARE POSSIBLE OVER SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND IN THE NEXT 24 HOURS. MORE RAIN ON OUR ALREADY SATURATED SOILS WILL CAUSE CONTINUED RISES ON ALL STREAMS AND RIVERS. THE MAJOR RIVERS OF SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND WILL EXPRIENCE SICNIFICANT WITHIN BANK RISES BY SUNDAY MORNING. YOUR NATIONAL LEATHER SERVICE URGES YOU TO BE ALERT TO RAPIDLY CHANGING RIVER AND STREAM CONDITIONS. NATIONAL LEATHER SERVICE ADVISORIES AND FORECASTS WILL BE ISSUED THROUGHOUT THE DAY. THE FOLLOWING ARE SPECIFIC STAGE FORECASTS BASED ON THE ANTICIPATED RAINFALL FOR THE NEXT 24 HOURS: CONNECTICUT RIVER HARTFORD FLOOD STAGE IS 16 FT 7 AM STAGE WAS 6.3 FT THE RIVER WILL RISE TO A STAGE NEAR 9 1/2 FT BY SUNDAY MORNING. YANTIC RIVER NORWICH FLOOD STAGE IS 8 FT THE RIVER WILL RISE TO 2 TO 3 FEET ABOVE FLOOD STAGE BY SUNDAY AM CHARLES RIVER CHARLES RIVER VILLAGE FLOOD STAGE IS 4 FT 7 AM STAGE WAS 3.5 FT THE RIVER STAGE WILL RISE TO NEAR 6 112 FT BY SUNDAY MORNING. BLACKSTONE RIVER NORTHBRIDGE FLOOD STAGE IS 9 FT 7 AM STAGE WAS 5.8 FT THE RIVER WILL RISE TO A STAGE NEAR 10 FEET BY SUNDAY MORNING WOONSOCKET FLOOD STAGE IS 9 FT 7 AM STAGE L)AS 6.4 FT THE RIVER WILL RISE TO A STAGE NEAR 11 FT BY SUNDAY MORNING. SHETUCKET RIVER WILLIMANTIC FLOOD STAGE IS 13 FT 7 AM STAGE WAS 7.3 FT THE RIVER WILL RISE TO A STAGE NEAR 12 1/2 FT BY SUNDAY MORNING. THE NEXT MESSAGE WILL BE ISSUED SATURDAY EVENING. TODD MENDELL 17 The major source of information river levels in the Yantic River basin on potential rainfall is the Quantative by volunteers in the Norwich Self-Help Precipitation Forecasts QPF) prepared program permitted NWS to issue more by the Boston WSFO. While these forecasts accurate flood warnings and weather indicated an accumulation of several statements for that area. inches of rain throughout New England, thcy did not forecast the very large The Skywarn Amatew Radio Netwofk amounts of 8 to 16 inches that fell (used mainly for tornado watches) was over eastern and southern Connecticut. also activated on Saturday morning. Satellite data indicated heavy precip- Nine volunteers operated the system itation of .2 to .4 inches/hour for until Sunday night. Their observations the New England area, but these esti- on rainfall and flooding were received mates were below criteria established and evaluated by the Hartford WSO and by NWS for issuance of flash flood warn- relayed to NERFC by telephone. ings. The NERFC also maintains several Radar coverage for Connecticut river gage stations along the Connecticut, is provided by NWS stations in New York, Housatonic, Farmington and Shetucket Chatham and Hartford. These radar stations Rivers. Readings from these gages were were monitored continuously throughout telemetered to NERFC over telephone the storm period, but radar data did lines. In addition, one automated rainfall not inAlcate cause for immediate concern. gage is maintained by NERFC near its Except for the Hartford WSO, radar obser- office in Bloomfield. vations indicated rainfall generally less than .5 inch/hour. Although several sources of data were used by the weather service offices The NWS also uses a network of and NERFC, the amount and extent of volunteer observers to determine the excessive precipitation and the serious- actual rainfall and flooding that is ness of the flooding along small streams occurring in an area. Observers call was not known by NWS until after the in reports of precipitation and flooding storm was over. Rainf all forecasts every six hours (7am, lpm, 7pm, lam)4. were considerably less than the amount At the time of the June 1982 floods, of rain that actually fell, and the approximately 20 volunteer observers network of volunteer observers proved provided data to NERFC or the Hartford insufficient to indicate the amount WSO. The Bridgeport WSO did not utilize of rain that was falling. This defic- a network of volunteer observers. iency was particularly apparent in the south central area of Connecticut where Many of these observers are located the heaviest rainfall occurred. at dams (Corps of Engineers operated flood control dams and Northeast Utilities Following an internal review of dams along the Housatonic River) and its activities related to the June 1982 sewage treatment plants where personnel storm and floods, NWS initiated several are available 24 hours a day. Other improvements to strengthen its forecast observers are individual volunteers and warning abilities, including an with an avid interest in the weather, improved radar system and additional and participants in the Norwich Self-Help observers in southern Connecticut. Program. Monitoring of rainfall and NERFC also encouraged the State and municipalities to develop automated the Hartford Flood Warning Group. The flood warning systems that would provide NERFC also telephoned WFSB-TV (Channel greater warning time for small streams. 3) in Hartford and WTNH-TV (Channel (1p4p5p697) 8) in New Haven to confirm that they had received the "Flood Potential State- Dissemination of Information by the ment" issued on Friday afternoon. National Weather Service. The NWS used its normal communication methods to The Bridgeport WSO, until it ceased disseminate forecasts and warnings. operations at 10 pm Saturday, was in These methods were the NWS teletype, direct telephone contact with the New NOAA VHF Weather Radio, and the National Haven Emergency Operations Center. Warning System (NAWAS). The Bridgeport WSO also provided live broadcasts over New Haven radio station In addition to the standard means WELI, through a hot-line between the of communications, NEREC was in direct weather service office and the radio telephone contact with the civil prepared- station. (1,5,7,) ness director and flood coordinator for the Norwich Self-Help Program and NERFC OFFICM FL00QKD'@:::::: j Tht:::: ri h: m a [email protected] ti [email protected] cbfitatt:@wl WSVO: e.n e r I e. ril 0 omfi:i l&:::,e Xp P, q w in:gH ,,p o ems:::@: utin:g @40rm:atlon:: to - t 0 w a:::::, @[email protected]:@:@@[email protected],:@@@@ii6iiii*@@@:.,@,,@[email protected]@,.;,::@@6f.f- h d' er u&cd ce s%:::: 'a. @4* @:[email protected]:h, [email protected]@ 4 [email protected]@ cont. AIC e V: ..:.p.exjo ho t act; t 9't C-1 0 ki'd 31 i d Ah4triitf::D:@z Mix A @Pmi StiiiA [email protected] I - 11 1 i @ 1:@ .71- @: [email protected] [email protected]@i alt#r- IT la y @;@i v ervers n T 404*2p: ove:@ipi ti hibi h E @FZC ot .0 ''d c'_A e r: ba:seme:Uz:: [email protected]@e'@:N RF 3. 4:.., All tM _00 i Q,W Wa, ;.Z: - d eavae Ub "d r,e C At I I ha,,,adr:,' i' i aa': nd f f, @'d` lqwIng @Thr,oug._ A f f e it te& H '[email protected]! vlfi e h'.. 7 t 04 CA: in 9P 9, a t: h 4i ilin i I ai'ted. Y k! t t h b6i ing f [email protected] ity ot, @Hzz e.1,:, cz. [email protected]@corqpu e I&C, 't t r: e qu lp f t Y-1 ot e it af f 44's If 't. @j:@: ag A, k. d @[email protected] Jj @J el 4 )k 'c 0 4 c en:[email protected]:_ ratio Item d t [email protected] & &p n: 4N @j 19AMUO . . . .. .. ... .... . t C ng C h 1; Aid? 19 SrATE AND LOCAL WARNINGS The alternate State warning point is the Connecticut Office of Civil Prepar- The primary State emergency warning edness (OCP) in the National Guard Armory point is the Communications Division in Hartford. The alternate warning of the Connecticut State Police in Hartford point is manned during normal working (Figure 2.5). This warning point is days f rom 8:30 am to 4:30 pm (8,10). manned 24 hours a day by full-time radio dispatchers. It receives all warnings Because the "Flood Potential State- issued through the National Warning ment" issued by NERFC on Friday afternoon System (NAWAS), the NWS Teletype, and was not a flood warning, it was issued the NOAA VHF weather radio (8,9). only over the NWS teletype and not over FIGURE 2.5: CONNECTICUT EMERGENCY WARNING SYSTEM FLOW CHART warning L sources q State Police ---- - - - - - - - -- OCP (State Warning (Al -7 Point) Warning Point) ce Network Control 22 SAWAS (Tolland) r -St 171 Drops For Agencies Including state Fire r ---- S Radio tat P ivt' :-j Agencies LA @gen State Local Fire Fanout 16 9 Towns R dio Loc:tions EBS ...... . ......... C - - - - - - - WT IC/WDRC (AM & E74) National public LEGEND We a ther .......... After Duty Hours Service 24 Hours - - - Duty Hours only -7 -Authorized to initiate NCAA VHF statewide NAWAS warning Weather Radi 0 1 1 Subscribers (Tolland. Meriden Montville) LE G.v. "a t1o n, eathe , rv ce L TSe L @N (To Rev. July 1, 1981 Source: Emergency OveratioDs Pl#n. Part 11. Natural Disasters. Connecticut Office of Civil Preparedness, Revised to September 1981. 20 the NAWAS system (1,16). This was the to the Hartford flood coordinator enabled first time that NERFC had issued that the City of Hartford to prepare for type of statement, and NERFC did not evacuations along the north and south telephone OCP offices to confirm that branches of the Park River (1). the message had been received and to discuss the flooding potential (1,4,7). Other towns received only a general Since the statement was not a flood warning for urban and small stream flooding warning, OCP made no special arrange- throughout the State. These warnings ments to staff its offices for the weekend (as well as the warnings for the major in anticipation of a flooding emergency, rivers) were received by towns at their and the OCP Emergency Operations Center local warning point (usually local police was not activated until Saturday after- or fire stations), over the NOAA Weather noon -- after flooding was widespread. Radio, and from regional OCP offices and the Connecticut State Police or By contrast, in Rhode Island the other source in the Connecticut Warning Providence WSO contacted the director Fanout, such as State and county fire of the Rhode Island State Civil Defense radio systems. Flood warnings were by telephone on Friday morning, June also broadcast over local radio and 4, regarding the flood potential for T.V. stations (9,10,13). the weekend. The Rhode Island Civil Defense staffed its offices for the Once flood warnings were received, weekend in anticipation of possible local action depended upon the particular f looding (1). system in operation within a town. Typically, the local chief elected official The National Weather Service issued and/or civil preparedness director worked specific flood warnings for several in cooperation with local police and of the [email protected] rivers in Connecticut: fire departments to periodically monitor Farmington River, Connecticut River, streams with known flood potential. .Housatonic River, and Shetucket River Based on their previous experience with (1,5). These warnings advised local local flooding, these officials notified officials of the approximate time and residents of floodprone areas when flooding level of flooding to be expected, permit- appeared imminent. Specific warnings ting them to notify local residents for evacuation or flood loss reduction and businesses and take other actions measures were usually not given by local as appropriate. officials much in advance of actual flooding because they had no way to The NERFC also directly notified accurately estimate the time and extent .the flood coordinators in Norwich and of flooding that could be expected (14). Hartford. The early warnings of potential flooding allowed the Norwich Civil Pre- OCP requires each town to have paredness Director to notify residents a written emergency operations plan and businesses along the Yantic River for handling natural disasters such in Norwich to expect flooding (4,12). as floods. OCP Area Coordinators review Potential flood levels for the Yantic local plans and supporting annexes submit- were estimated by NERFC based on rainfall ted to their offices and actively encourage and river stage observations telephoned towns to review and update their plans to NERFC by the Norwich Civil Preparedness at least every two years (11). Director (5). NWS warnings provided 21 Interviews with numerous town Actions based on personal knowledge officials, including local civil prepar- rather than written procedures appeared edness directors, during the course adequate to provide evacuation warn- of preparing this report indicated that ings, but inadequate for reducing flood almost no towns had written emergency losses. The part time position of most procedures specifically covering warnings, civil preparedness directors may contribute evacuations and other emergency procedures to the lack of written procedures. for floods. Personal knowledge of flood Interviews also indicated that towns potential and flood prone areas by key within a ten-mile radius of the nuclear town officials such as the civil prepar- power plants in Connecticut were generally edness director, first selectman, and better prepared for natural disasters police and fire chiefs, were most often because of their nuclear accident prepar- relied upon to provide flood warnings. edness plans. [email protected]@[email protected] [email protected]:1' OG'AAW: i:[email protected]!' @i,:"[email protected]: ]:i:@ w 1.0 a, S. tento ronic. 16 Ji: orr ii r serv t 44,pt yp,i, on: @e:[email protected] [email protected] a',tur inU` r [email protected] N @:4iktqt t:Hma e i*ov e. dlii th le [email protected] @'441, a, P, ';@'Tow 'Ve Ope Acastv w. ev ii n IVWz Fs s- d ne j pr.09 V aM_i,::" C iv e r;1 4 t t C rltl V db' I bliihedl': [email protected] nd .. . .. . .. .11, if4i fUl varfilft [email protected] 0 oc i f M vance::@::i usine'.4V'! an. ''a [email protected] than 11*6111, 0 s, an [email protected] t d1unteti i: &ilif' it. 'N O'r wji W1 P d t Cf. &i:iiio OD in [email protected]] ap _.Jns ru [email protected]@ n_4u;,r:[email protected], A t VIV, portInt': .&,In a. amount' p,, a: so: chi. t 4: [email protected] t [email protected] op x t $ [email protected] 164 1 n:g @.O V [email protected] I ]@:: iii @i @ $vo iz, a @:@Cotitifiue to od jV14't., n !i! I an ia cv,,e: IN o setva. ions::, a t iii:i.:@':@@[email protected]@@[email protected]@i*iC'[email protected],,.:,repato new eg t op ingil.1, V9 *wor .1 t, ax ot. k r: is.: eve h`i 0 h ailot d fw_ i [email protected] *44 NWSJJan_ ot @tir M @"FNT6, [email protected] f f Treviou inylpeoph 1'%h;';* Apa e V. e iich:::@ iC:i e- x om RFC:@@'4ib!iifiid theVN 'ar, ai V [email protected]:@SbtiiFHb. iiiiet tt, @[email protected] 4f ihi P 7:, @7 :oo, in @i! he --t 1A. tid iT In [email protected] I rep nsi ci- Are''..'est ul 14 ising: M SO It T6W Jw: i @i h Zr Pf [email protected]@ 4:h" A:i the' ,ir wer ....... .... _anage @jlj jilil 0 tti @:i l6ii: 1clais f, d: 01 i C Xp 0 14 7 [email protected] oic r fl . ..... 22 resources on life saving efforts and then to redirect them to recovery efforts FLOOD FIGHTING AND EVACUATION as life threatening situations decreased. The life saving focus was the predominant activity of State agencies through Saturday As heavy rains continued throughout night. the 9tate -- PoLfticularly in gauth centril Connecticut -- all day Saturday and The OCP role was primarily to into Sunday, severe flooding problems coordinate activities and to serve as developed. Segments of roads began a central point for receiving and disburs- to wash out as drainage systems clogged ing information to the Governor, other or overflowed and water washed across State agencies, town officials and the and along roadways and shoulders. In news media. Information was received many areas, sections of roads collapsed at the EOC from OCP area coordinators, as saturated soil in road embankments State agencies and towns regarding the gilve [email protected] areas that were affected by flooding, the degree and type of damages that As streamflow increased in volume had occured, and requests for equipment and velocity, many small bridges were and supplies. OCP used this information damaged or failed as floodwaters washed to coordinate with the State Police, over or around them or undermined support- National Guard, Department of Transpor- ing walls. Homes and businesses were tation and other State agencies for flooded or threatened with flooding allocation of equipment; supplies, and from overflowing streams. Many small manpower to the areas in greatest need dams were breached or overtopped. In of assistance. To assist in the flood response to these flood problems, local fighting efforts, OCP, through its central and State personnel began to expand office and five area coordinators, provided their activities beyond monitoring and about 39,000 sand bags to Connecticut warning, to assisting with flood fight- towns. (10,16) ing, rescue, and evacuation efforts. Office of Policy and Management. Beginning Saturday afternoon, Office of Policy STATE ACTIVITIES and Management (OPM) personnel were assigned to the EOC and assisted OCP Office of Civil Preparedness. The Office coordinate activities with State agencies of Civil Preparedness, which operates and municipalities. OCP maintained directly under the Governor, began pro- contact with municipal officials to viding coordination for the flood emergency receive information on local damages when the Emergency Operations Center and to provide them with information (EOC) at the State Armory in Hartford on how to obtain sandbags and other was activated about 4:30 on Saturday emergency supplies and equipment. OPM afternoon. Initially the Governor super- also assisted with providing information vised civil preparedness operations to the news media and general public from his location at Camp ONeill in on conditions in Connecticut. (17) East Lyme. The Governor arrived at the EOC to begin directing activities State Police. State Police personnel from there on Saturday night. Initial were assigned to the OCP Emergency Opera- decisions by OCP were to focus State tions Center in Hartford for three days. 23 They assisted with coordination of equip- icut National Guard became involved ment and personnel requests and providing in the flood emergency efforts on Saturday data on fatalities and bridge washouts afternoon. The Governor requested that to the medla. approximately 1,000 National Guardsmen on routine weekend maneuvers across As a result of their 24-hour public the State remain on duty to assist with safety functions, the State Police were rescue and flood fighting efforts. actively involved in flood emergency These guardsmen were dispatched to areas activities well before OCP began coord- of the State where additional manpower inating operations. The State Police and heavy equipment available only from participated in many types of emergency the National Guard were needed. The activities, but one of their primary National Guardsmen performed a variety functions was to block off State roads of duties, including providing helicopter affected by wash-outs and damaged bridges transport for the Governor and other until barriers could be erected by the State, local and Federal officials to State Department of Transportation. view flooded areas, assisting local In those towns without a local police personnel with sandbagging the banks force, the State Police served a similar of the Yantic River, evacuating stranded function for town owned and maintained residents in several towns, assisting roads. State police also established State Police with traffic control, and alternate routes around blocked roads, towing stranded cars from Interstate manned those routes until signs could 95. (9,10,18) be erected, and provided notices to the news media regarding road closing Dcpartment of Transportation. The Depart- and alternate routes. ment of Transportation (DOI) was also extensively involved in providing emergency Other emergency activities in assistance. Initial DOT efforts were which State police were involved included mostly devoted to setting up temporary making observations at dams that were barricades at road washouts and damaged considered dangerous, providing emergency or destroyed bridges, marking alternate transportation for other emergency person- routes around impassable roads and bridges, nel, transmitting requests for emergency and making emergency repairs to road equipment to OCP or other State agencies, washouts. Since about 70 sections of working with the National Guard, providing State roads were temporarily closed warnings to areas where flooding was because of road or bridge damage, mud- imminent, assisting with rescue efforts, slides, or water on roads, a major effort and controlling access to areas with by DOT was involved (19,20). severe damage to prevent looters and other unauthorized persons from entering DEP Water Resources Unit. The DEP Water the area. Access control was particularly Resources Unit (WRIJ) monitored NERFC important in the Ivoryton and Centerbrook broadcast warnings of overbank flooding sections of Essex where the most severe on Saturday morning. At 12:15 am a flood damage occurred. A State Police decision was made to go on standby Flood Mobile Command Post was established Emergency Alert. At 1:20 pm, OCP called in Ivoryton and remained in operation WRU for advice regarding high water for over two weeks. (9) at Beaver Brook Dam in Ansonia. At 1:30 pm a decision was made to open Connecticut National Guard. The Connect- WRUs Flood Emergency Operations Center, 24 and by 2:30 the Center was in full opera- to survey flood damage and make a prelim- tion with engineering staff on standby. inary assessment of stream channel debris Throughout the emergency, the WRU Emergency clearance and reconstruction requirements. Operations Center provided flood hazard By Monday afternoon, the teams confirmed assessment and engineering data on dams that seven dams had failed statewide, to OCP. one of which was State-owned. (21) Saturday afternoon, the Flood Other Agencies. Other State agencies Emergency Operations Center contacted were also involved in the emergency DEP District personnel to inventory efforts. The DEP Water Compliance Unit conditions at State and Federal flood identified local sewerage facilities control structures and State-owned dams that were damaged or overloaded by flooding pursuant to guidelines spelled out in with a resultant release of untreated the Unit's Operations and Maintenance or insufficiently treated wastewaters Manual. At the direction of the DEP into streams and rivers. Notices to Commissioner, the Flood Emergency Opera- avoid "contact recreation" were issued tions Center alerted the Department's for several rivers and harbor areas Law Enforcement Chief early Saturday as a result of -these discharges. DEP evening about the developing problem immediately began collecting and testing and arranged for ten trailored boats water samples for bacteria levels and and about 40 Conservation Officers to issued periodic updates on water condi- standby. The Unit requested Law Enforce- tions. DEP also contacted industries ment personnel to evacuate by boat resi- with their own waste disposal facilities dents stranded at the Center Brook Apart- and, in at least one instance, required ments in Hamden. Law Enforcement boats an industry to cease operations until were also made available in several its treatment process was restored. other municipalities. (18,22) Early Sunday morning, four field The Department of Health Services engineer teams were mobilized to provide identified areas with disrupted or contam- field reconnaissance on problem dams inated water supplies and helped arrange and reports on critical dams. These for potable water. It also issued warnings teams checked dams in the Greater Hartford, and notices regarding the need to boil central, eastern, southeastern, and drinking water in some areas as a result south central areas of the State which of damages to public water supply systems experienced the heaviest rainfall and and to dispose of food contaminated most reports of flood problems. with flood waters. (23) Condition reports on dams and At the request of the Governor, property damage were taken and relayed the Corps of Engineers inspected 65 to OCP headquarters. On Monday morning, dams between June 12 and 17. Fifty-nine a field team was sent to the Pratt Read of these dams had been classified as Reservoir Dam in Deep River to coordinate "unsafe non-emergency" during the original emergency work on the structure. Non-Federal Dam Inspection Program com- pleted by the COE in 1981. Six other Reconnaissance teams composed dams of concern to DEP had been classified of DEP, SCS, and COE personnel were as in poor condition in the original sent into the field early Monday afternoon COE inspection program. Only one dam -- 25 Rocky Glen Dam in Newtown -- was found Other agencies such as the Department to present an immediate increased threat of Housing and the Department of Economic to lives and property as a result of Development provided information to the June 1982 floods. The COE sent OCP on damages to businesses and homes each clam owner a copy of their inspection that was needed to allocate State resources report. (24,25) (16,28,29). Staff from the central and area Red Cross. The Connecticut Red Cross offices of the Department of Consumer cooperated with OCP in providing emergency Protection!s Drug Control Division and assistance and maintained a liasion Food Division visited all heavily damaged at the EOC beginning on Sunday morning. areas and inspected businesses with Operating through its 30 chapters across food or drug items. They supervised the State, the Red Cross exchanged infor- the disposal of damaged food and drug mation with OCP about damages in diff erent supplies from 50 food establishments areas. and 9 pharmacies in 11 towns (26,27). uA Or A, qw 05 -n j Removal of contaminated food products from the Shop-Rite store in Norwich. (Photo courtesy of the Norwich Bulletin) 26 The Red Cross cstabliAcd tcmporary Salvation Army. The Salvation Army headquarters in Farmington and alerted assisted in the flood emergency by opening all chapters that additional volunteers local Salvation Army facilities for and supplies were needed. A permanent emergency shelter and by operating four operations headquarters was opened in emergency mobile units to provide food the Hamden Police Department on Tuesday, service and refreshments to flood victims June 9. Beginning Sunday night, additional and relief workers (32). Red Cross staff and volunteers arrived in Connecticut from neighboring states, the Red Cross Eastern Field Office and National Headquarters. A total of 81 Red Cross personnel were assigned to the Connecticut flood disaster and 600 volunteers from Connecticut and sur- rounding states assisted. In addition to cooperating with OCP in the identification of affected areas, the Red Cross worked closely ti with State and local officials in opening twenty-five shelters in eleven chapters throughout the State (See Figure 2.5). A total of 648 people were provided shelter during the first three days of flooding. Nurses were assigned to each shelter. Flood victims and workers were fed at each of the centers and at additional mobile and fixed feeding centers in shoreline communities. The Red Cross also distributed clean-up kits (mops, brooms, bucket, disinfectant, etc.) and comfort kits (toiletries and t personal items). As flood waters receeded, most people were able to return to their W, homes, and most of the emergency shelters were closed on Monday. A few shelters remained open additional days to house several families whose homes were not safe for occupancy. After the shelters closed, approximately 20 people were temporarily housed in commercial facil- ities at Red Cross expense. The Red Cross also opened several family service centers on Wednesday, June 9 to provide continuing assistance to needy families. (30,31). 27 TOWN ACTIVITIES In many communities fire depart- ments had to delay or reduce their basement Local fire departments were among pumping chores in order to assist local the first town personnel to become involved police and other officials with the in flood fighting efforts. Overbank more urgent task of providing warnings flooding of small streams and saturated to residents of flooded areas and assisting soil conditions resulted in widespread in evacuation and rescue efforts. Local basement flooding of homes and businesses, police and firemen were assisted by and fire departments throughout the local civil preparedness officials and State received thousands of requests other town officials and staff in perform- to pump out flooded basements. Most ing functions similar to those carried were busy from Saturday until well into out by the State Police, Department the following week providing pump-out of Transportation and other State agen- services for area residents. cies. 'estpor: t: [email protected]@iWer. ay y, W t Vol_ W s an ing.-Olft V, r7oo: In t; orc'] A ],.94 rIil Ye [email protected],ox & [email protected],,,:'- @ ::@._:::,@:].,,@_:- @:,::@ z n I'A @d. :tag ng: watet:jan U t was..: Sh :sw,e,p,.: di k. ,.an Sur la:cz OnJ tKe: 0 th-,ei AM On e:- r an a::o [email protected]@@:i]@@@@f:[email protected]'s,@[email protected]@@@,@,@@I Nth b4 64k i d" 1: bb: 'in 7 ii e, turren W as- t ,.thif [email protected] fat [email protected] I As S YoUn t:W V t [email protected] CU r Te @,O ollw *A.9::@,@ t __; ''[email protected]@"l'[email protected],'@,,@.:@,.,@,@[email protected],@,::,,,E 4) 4 , @O a "dei he' rols, nd fti iiid, i:,u @W W @4. d, h W er.,[email protected] At Vogl 9 4:,:: 77 appe at Wh *'I;", '7, i,:. jumpt 17,@[email protected] @4 i d W Y-1 h. wl_ [email protected] tut e iiiIIIA the tw_ 6 Va [email protected] @i @s, @i:. .b Chic. Norwich residents being evacuated aan, from their homes in a National Guard truck. (Photo courtesy @iZU a. z of the Norwich Bulletin) . . ...... 1, 28 Closing off roads because of flood- other municipal buildings as emergency ing, washouts and bridge damage was shelters. Sometimes these shelters a major activity in all towns affected were operated in conjunction with the by serious flooding. Local personnel Red Cross, but others were provided were also involved with providing warnings solely by the towns. to area residents threatened with flooding or isolation by floodwaters. In many Not everyone received advance cases police entered areas threatened warning, and some people became stranded by flooding and broadcast warnings to in their homes, unable to reach safe residents over loudspeakers. In other ground on their own. In other cases, areas door-to-door checks were made people who received warnings of imminent to warn people. flooding failed to heed them. As a result, local police and firemen, often Statewide, more than 1,300 people assisted by State police and the National were evacuated from their homes (16). Guard, conducted numerous rescue opera- Figure 2.6 indicates those towns where tions. Boats and heavy duty trucks evacuations were reported. As people were used to bring many people to safety were evacuated, towns opened local armor- from their homes and vehicles. (18,33) ies, schools, community centers and FIGURE 2.6: EVACUATIONS AND RED CROSS EMERGENCY SHELTER CENTERS (1) Red Cross emergency shelter centers Towns in which evacuations were reported Source: CT Red Cross, CT Department of Environmental Protection, newspaper articles, interviews with town officials. 29 Another unfortunate duty was search- buildings were flooded, such as the ing for drowning victims. Ten of the Town Hall in Milford, town employees 11 flood-related deaths resulted from worked to recover flood damaged furniture, people being swept away by flood waters. equipment and records. As flood waters There were also numerous searches of receded, town crews began the work of submerged cars to determine if anyone clearing drains, removing debris, and was trapped inside. clearing mud and silt from local streets and other public property. Where possible, town public works crews made temporary repairs to flood In areas where damages were partic- damaged local roads to make them passable. ularly severe, local officials declared In some towns, crews also placed sand a state of emergency. In some instances, bags along the banks of rivers and reser- such as in Essex and Milford, portions voirs to try and keep them from over- of the town were blocked off and access f lowing. Sandbags were also placed restricted to emergency workers and around public buildings, businesses, to residents and businessmen of the and residences to try and prevent the affected areas. (14,18) entry of flood waters. Where public ad 4'r t V J*ff K Workers begin cleaning up inside the Pratt Read factory in Essex. (Photo by Danny Hyland) 30 FLOOD EVACUATION IN ESSEX At 12:30 am Sunday morning, the Bushy Hill Dam burst and sent a wall of water downstream, washing out Evacuation in Essex resulted about six other dams and devastating from the actions of local officials the 1voryton and Centerbrook sections and private industry. National Weather of Essex. Firemen continued to evacuate Service forecasts and warnings provided people and rescue those trapped by no role in Essex. Because of the the rushing waters. By 6:00 am Sunday heavy rain that had been falling floodwaters had subsided enough that gince about midnight Saturday, Town fitemen could use boats to teach officials began observing the Falls additional people stranded by the River on Saturday morning. An engineer floodwaters. Rescue efforts continued for the Pratt Read Corporation, which until after 9:00 pm Sunday. Surpris- owned two dams on the Falls River, ingly, there were no deaths and no also observed the flow of the river serious injuries in Essex from the and the level of the ponds. flooding. (36) About 6:30 pm volunteer firemen were called out to assist with basement pumping and sandbagging. Around 8:00 pm Clark's Pond began to exceed its banks, and Pratt Read employees began to move material from the floor of the plant and shut off electrical c i r C u i t s .About 9:00 pm a Pratt Read employee reported to the First Selectman that the Clark's Pond Dam was beginning to overtop. Sometime after 10:00 pm he also called the fire chief to inform him that he was concerned about the condition of the dams. The First Selectman and fire chief decided that evacuation was necessary, and notice was given to evacuate the Falls River area from Clark's Pond to the Connecticut River. Firemen were told to evacuate homes which would be affected by a 6-8 foot rise in the water level. Over the next hour and a half, the volunteer firemen notified people in the area to evacuate. Using official and personal vehicles, the firemen knocked on the dpors of individual houses, 7 notified residents of the potential for flash flooding, and advised them Destroyed tax bills being removed of locations in town where they could from the Milford Cit '\7 Hall basement. go for the night. (Photo by Bob Coleman, the Milford Citizen) 31 had signed no-bid contracts with four construction companies to immediately EMERGENCY DEBRIS REMOVAL AND ROAD AND begin removing debris from damaged bridges CHANNEL REPAIRS and from nearby stream channels. As DOT emergency designs for temporary bridge replacements were completed, As soon as flood watcrs began additional constfuction companies were to recede and the immediate flood fighting hired. By June 21, 14 construction and life saving measures were largely firms had been hired to perform emergency concluded, Federal, State and local bridge replacement and reconstruction personnel began emergency clean-up and of washed out roads. To speed the re- repair tasks. Particularly important opening of State roads where bridges was the removal of debris from roads, had been destroyed, the Governor, on bridges, and stream channels, and their June 21, directed the contractors to emergency repair. begin working ten-hour days, seven days per week (12,23). ROADS AND BRIDGES just as repair work on State roads proceeded at a rapid pace, most Connecticut The Department of Transportation towns were also busily repairing washed instituted emergency procedures to make out sections of roads and damaged bridges. permanent repairs to roads and bridges These repairs were made by local street and temporary repairs to bridges that and public works crews, frequently supple- were destroyed or suffered major damage. mented by local contractors. Using its own maintenance forces and equipment, supplemented with contracted equipment, DOT began immediately removing debris and repairing road washouts. It also began repairing bridges with STREAM CHANNELS minor damage, determining which destroyed or severely damaged bridges could be In addition to road and bridge replaced with temporary spans, and design- repairs, emergency work was also needed ing permanent replacements for destroyed to remove debris clogging stream channels bridges. and to repair eroded stream banks. Much of this work was done by towns By Monday, June 7, DOT reported using their own crews or by contracting that it had reopened 40 of the 70 sections to private firms. As indicated above, of State roads that had been closed. the State DOT also contracted for debris By the end of the first week following clearance from stream channels around the flooding, all State roads were reported bridges. back in service except for sections immediately adjacent to bridges that For channel debris clearance and had been washed out. emergency streambank stabilization that required significant expenditures, the Because of the extensive damage U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to State roads and bridges, DOT supple- provided technical and financial assis- mented its own resources with private tance. Under its Emergency Watershed contractors. By Monday, June 7, DOT Protection program, Exigency Phase, 32 the SCS undertook stream improvements the SCS office in Connecticut contacted that were required immediately to prevent the national SCS office and requested further damage from occurring. The immediate funding to permit exigency location of these projects are shown work to begin. The request was approved in Figure 2.6 and described in Table and additional SCS personnel were assigned 2.1. to Connecticut from Rhode Island, Pennsyl- vania and Massachusetts. Based on observations by SCS staff on Sunday June 6 and Monday June 7, FIGURE 2.6: LOCATION OF SCS EXIGENCY PROJECTS FOR STORN OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 Rainbow Brook C;ndlevood B ook Beacon Hill Brook Little River Beaver Br0ok Indian Hiantic River River (Latimer B r.ok) Fattaconk k Eightmile River Wrights & O:d Salmon River Brook :0 D::p River Mill River Fa a River Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Storrs, CT 33 The SCS personnel immediately included the removal of trash, lumber, prepared designs for stream channel trees, homes and cars. Stream banks stabilization and let the first contracts were seeded to stabilize them, and thou- for emergency work on Wednesday, June sands of tons of riprap were used on 9. Work on the first project began stream banks. The total cost of these on Thursday June 10, and by the following emergency stream stabilization projects Thursday, 20 contracts had been awarded was $2,655,229. (35) in 13 communities. These contracts TABLE 2.1: CONTRACT DESCRIPTIONS FOR SCS EXIGENCY PROJECTS FOR STORK OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 PROJECT NAME CONTRACT DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST Falls River Debris and deposition removal, channel reconstruction, $1,106,769 (7 reaches) bank stabilization and seeding. Wrigbts Fond Bridge, debris and deposition removal and seeding 29,500 0 sites) Niantic River Tree removal, bank stabilization and seeding 28,850 (Latimer Brook) Candlewood Brook Bridge, deposition and debris removal, bank stabilization 158,860 and seeding. Rainbow Brook Debris removal, channel reconstruction, bank stabilization 169,263 and seeding. Beaver Brook Debris and deposition removal, bank stabilization and seeding. 182,002 Deep River Bridge, deposition and debris removal. 9,200 Eigbtmile River Bridge and debris removal 5,647 Indian River Debris removal, bank stabilization and seeding. 34,294 Mill River Bridge, debris and deposition removal, channel reconstruction, 121,217 bank stabilization and seeding. Little River Debris and deposition removal, and bank stabilization. 62,234 Beacon Hill Brook Debris and deposition removal, bank stabilization, and seeding. 182,532 Salmon River Bank stabilization and seeding. 284,079 Pattaconk Brook Bridge, deposition and debris removal, bank stabilization, 276,692 (3 sites) and seeding. TOTAL COST $2,655,229 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Storro, CT. 34 CHAPTER 3 FLOOD LOSSES Rivers rece e., revealing ruin sy MCKA" VMIM EconomicFarmers take a beating 11all.. Stan Writer is Gov. O'Neil NORWICH - Free from torrell, stricken state. IF 3Wi0CeM=,`wgZ fir'W"d= Rm, wolloe to the class Monday beg the tedious, beart- cracked and cratered F. damage as runoff ruins the landligreaking t2h= together trials VstWxryg, .r we rem= Of businesa- loves JU BY TNOM MICRAW feet above flood Stage, [email protected] of it* Beebt farm is a '*t " Aling Z= the es Bulletin Staff Writer out of the flood plane. From across the river it" - r. Nation, the lots .le= ,mat's six-tauldred-arld-forty ftusam - vibrant green. ;Vue keeping of water in mute I broad of walerft comills on* my 'arul." BUI 's, on d records M Is". W ft fury of the storm B to. a or Normeh Anton Goulart Jr., litchville farm fits against in BarrICIIt ftprbl"Z Af =ti= d!n&= mud called In rathatm to Civil By PHIL RIETH =.how ut the Yantic River like a billowing with l1le neof state road crews, they rescued 20 1. =,d' witridows fogged with While national guardsmen, 7be buile watersbedl keep feeding the bod of IS which were left Stranded on a am Director Rita Frec d water puddled inside tht Sure LD rgency person- river which has torn at his land six times so the diver of Loind near Rle '. The road crews reach $20 moon while state offi- The Connecticut co! work crm labored to pj.1t2 y blocked off braffic on t y and cut through cids claim the overall destruction delegation, argalowfule nel. diicc' crate 'ears. he high. had never diane gTo qufte am dramatically the pard tails so the heifers could be lead act- my cost Connecticut tapayers =%!4be sent I K,Ut those communities plundered as early Sunday morning . was only one Rte. 2 to safety. upwards of $100 million. an as Sc, the -Aood back in some in the Yantic River valley Me Beebes have yiLto :Yey William A. O'Neill relit of many that took it an 1.=d=l Bd= c - rotdcf, joW and the chin ft- the storm which time to their corn fit V. , = little more gemblan C 0 dumped nearly six deluge had flood recovery assigarn; region ova the weekend. well. But, doe says, ight, of w 7zp state officials spent much of last haloes of min on the flat yet two t fairly. dr - ulc to temor Young bright =Yh =1 "Ll. "like a lake." ==h, =-gh: .= a vvccx compiling a preliminary inches hia = WA.= -tbt cut d% --N first cat is always the best. We umally service essmultes, while outer sec- qaes that the Fede;al -U- ---nnil wiflies thruo fields and flattened bay ite have it m the barn by now. And we leg a lot of it= of We State were pellad with Management Agenc) y for their first mawW.,, to" we Jug put in." tbode cities and tow= Leaders Seeking ut stmost am 0( (soulart tilled land is an the nem, goo, Jim, doubts that an can salvage baff 'p dgea were washed floodu @&Sular area I plain, and his farm took it the worst. of the bay that grows on 100 Bem. "It's going to ous, weakening dams kept officials lb "tion wow is angular face is taut as be ticks,off &LD2pd III, holding their breath Bad thousands dents would be efigibli Damage Totals age 1111ok at it" he says, striding toward a Ham SKbmdQ, an Old Baltic Road in of bigne owners struggled to @@=b-= agf,point across; the stred-from his firm barn. Franklin, has twice that number of acres in hay c1lill" clear of water, many 12 Administration loam of corls, fft loaches high, Ali issid mother IX in com. the assistance of am fin *&A- td; Is gem d lay a Mew with IM am For Connecticut "'t " a "I He spent Sarday, gifternoan in his flignige Willi. is. Anskirier a acres I had mat to Plant. 7be on an air compressor, lallwig aboun the The Yantis: volunteer fire compa- dagor land around and it's all gone to bell. 1: so sick. I darlit know wberfe to fin first." =fam as soort as his land dnes out enog* a' 0-=t egutury - . Mustratilng his plight, he draws lines 00 - Uthe state 4 bad receded some to Work docit the dusty top of the c%Vresw to represent the of [email protected] statewide rv O'Neill Saim Emergency till, . were == 500 foot log ditches ragn water carved old of this am - local 015 IOU had been almost free of stanes and debris. hiss fields. be tides, the basement Is Olver for F7wd A rw the river took his top soll and d== "Ill take a dam up Moore," he Says Placing W Wb= W deffiNg I rocks and, be fun, glass and -. . ", _ " iiiin , , r. !oQ the tam .p, =or, The FloodlAssessing the Damage Special, K"TFOU icut's flooilling; ean ified interigoollky-thwe Businesses: Many Close as Owners Ask Federal Help =-p = By DICK LE1M clean be debris; tell when I Gov. WWW C-1 SIW M',@ter fact of'Tater nooded the 155.000. =F ZZ,-e t.' lr.=,-d%@ Its the No r [email protected] -,hare temporarily without mentsaralcaunngriullionsofdol- ... S an [email protected]@ square-foot plant, where seming he said. lauses .0 Ian in damage. ftt"thliblasife Weekend flooding tuall beavy macbdac atticarnents sua, onson. Ubloulky anumded like a valler. =.(=7attVad Corp.. In Milford. amoni the hardest. in East Granby Roncart Indus- gindied," wiff I at- forced =. businesses in factured. . million 1. a 65 work- bit towns. the ndian and Iries suspended operations, order, 011billbet JUM Cenowtuct" t=*.bel!, *, It 'Ze -rnp,,.,! We is c,- re [email protected] receded at. It p Mon ing 120 workers to stay home. The t do- M- Mud covered macidnery and side es [email protected] :, @ X`n,% and the P,14- d to . 1. fl, officials t7ing company's quarry had 3 feet of overa daZ,1,4 day. lelving hundreds without how . its jobs Circus surfed cleaning up =. Mthadclayie=aj =or: Yantic Rim, always the first tained heavy dam two Many water .. it a, optiMate is COO the issuck .it rairmil inventories Zrpt mat., !M .it from place 10 the city to nood. has Bid. doms bmt early [email protected] 2,500 businesses were damaged. For some. the afte-th of I What the it Flood damage, lot The owners of Packaging Plus heavy rairs, and flooding meant a 10 formal a od.bea.,a;="g damaged [email protected] comm" she Along the sbarellaw the week. om any officials stood an Limited. North Street. Milford. bond in business, but not neces, '. cies mid 1Wa t. ILh wall or water sarily a welcome increase. FS Sbopowners and corporate workers, who P.-Y-1285 hourly -4 tourist tc-d- was wasbed nut. Inuiltreet Monday in the nib. mid B 5-foo hi pa lor F' ly get t- ouch got low4s -a stores "it .1% weeks *11 at nool-mmoner. ware roaredthrought irbuildingSun- Plumbers. elect-i- ..it floor 'I . ... =a .or on an early -una. No will day, on Monday, 1.600 typewrl cleaners were bus day [email protected] ove, the b- Usen have to file for usecoploy- oil Y Mon buildhomessar ManY businessonew boarded up their stores and m, 8X00 sets of tu&pv a checking Witter electrical cauflarge I., which few. it any, U, 3 ing fit The prisligill had received t reported they were bankirg on federal aid to 2,000 watches were scattered. Co- sv tems. clean oors and ,.=a to an a- owner Wil piunping out ell- assishunce we MSU.!Lrec1p1XPI1o(;@a will work rectiverfirant (he effects oftheflorA ..it 'i"i" H"' "' dasni,, satti. , partner I= fl= b ne to 'a. it, a micro dimstetra ""'m t1ou=.pt`ut0:tmfl=dNt, his Y-t "" ch' Jamei; saaft suran- "it the federal g.v- [email protected] `,h , . disait, 7ty'.' ut Uniltell Startest: State economic officials were eirtunatedus da"geflii; ment doesn't helt.;;;.. -we don't got a "ick on 1hej;;d d P-Pl. tm unable Monday to estimate taut S2,5 million :.it $4 to r, "a Valley Railroad in Easex wait ble, whom the plant stood last know what will n.; working.* mid lits"Cote. a by i= bushoess, lowes. but mid workers In the N.raricht... Mail, a so- closed for at least two weeks week. Local official, in the N of a f =w= store shopping center located in a after floodwaters wrecked . to 01 -m-ly .1 The 183-year-old Pratt-Red Inch Va Monday c'. '7% buZintr in d LymcpIC-otbei hiMillis towns to get 0 key, was dams [email protected] dle gand sleverial n i::.11e. boarded up flood plain northwest of Norwich, bridge and thousands of feet of Corp., maker of pin after the 1955 flood Dsughten. Clmr @Ias Zablotsky, manager, rail .81 manager Amid without electricig. -ad mud co,. ith @@rjrtghtti, :a IrTT d,,as- ote mid they began getting Iliggial defeg" th!i!rstYZ-`d ho, and recrt- man ered en. T -red -a I-;1,Mrra- Stockpiles or calls Sundai from horneemners In v:,, banki as .. ised or c_,.n raor bu I ynot un- rl nusturg, allied. S,M ==Z florri'le-eJecuralf kbi,'S-h4o'p. of F- mid use storm ca, I I who hot water heaters. ite Super Market Ine., had =.Ido the -it- ,tlcrcd lbrou It water pumps and circuit breakers "Vell bave the flood. - $30, Deep Riv. by flooduaters.it"ITo mi'nodrybtoogn Waterbury Mayor Edward D. chmkpd out after the flooding and nLln the West. er and another 000 in lost Wing." mid company President Bergin mid the Mad River played P-11 -Uugft 'ia 0 C " daegrataoragow Zzlil-TIt -1-lowed $20.000 is ice 128. Morm.10113di businessatonrofthesuite'smost .,..oil Comstock. havoc4n th, cast,ro smition of Monday for a, least Six the 'We haves waiting list of about weeks to them take $85,000 of meat to the popular tourist attractiond. Most of the firm's 160 employ- city. flooding residential base. 25 homes right now." she mid. 35 public buildings and other properties had been performed. INITIAL LOSS ESTIMATES On Sunday, June 6, the Governor's office estimated that damages were in PRELIMINARY ES77MATES the $100 million range, but refrained from making further estimates until During and immediately after the a complete survey of damages could be flooding, State and local officials prepared. On Monday and Tuesday, indivi- began assessing damages. Many early dual towns reported estimated damages estimates were made in response to requests such as: Milford, $18 million; Essex, from the news media, before reliable $30-35 million; Haddam, $7 million; estimates were possible. These preliminary Deep River $2-3 million; Norwich, $20 estimates were largely based on observa- million; New Haven, $20 million. Repre- tions by government officials as they sentative DeNardis from the Third Congres- toured damaged areas or participated sional District, which included 16 of in emergency operations. In most cases, the hardest hit towns in south central an accurate assessment of damages was Connecticut, estimated damages in his impossible because flooding was still district exceeded $100 million. State in progress: roads were still covered DOT officials initially estimated damages by flood waters, debris, and silt or to State roads and bridges at around mud; stream channels remained full or $7 million. (18) overflowing; and no systematic survey of damages to residences, businesses, [email protected] 7 fX W, [email protected] % J ;Z! Home in Ivoryton swept off its foundation by Falls River (Photo by Jack Sauer, The Day) 36 ESTIMATES FOR DISASTER DECLARATION DED headquarters and regional offices contacted local businessmen and town Based on the early damage esti- officials to obtain estimates of structural mates, the Governor declared a state damage, inventory losses, and actual of emergency on Sunday and indicated or projected business losses. Estimates that he would seek federal financial on all three types of losses were not assistance. Several State legislators available from all businesses contacted and U.S. Congressmen and Representatives (28). also issued calls for a presidential disaster declaration (18). On Wednesday, The Department of Housing (DOH), June 9, Governor ONeill sent a telegram gathered information on damages to resi- to the President informing him of Connect- dences. Most of the DOH data was collected icut's intention to seek a Federal disaster from individual towns and from the Red declaration. The Governor stated he Cross. DOH compared the results from would submit a formal request for a these two sources, made some windshield major disaster declaration on Thursday, survey field checks of its own and reported June 10 (37). the results to OCP. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Federal In accordance with its established Department of Housing and Urban Development procedures and in anticipation of submit- (HUD) advised DOH on the best methods ting a request for a federal disaster of making rapid estimates of residental declaration, the Office of Civil Prepar- damage. edness on Monday began to systematically assemble estimates of damages throughout Three categories of residential the State. These estimates kere provided damage were used: destroyed -- house by each town, several State and Federal completely demolished or moved from agencies, and the Red Cross. foundation; major damage -- water above the first floor; and minor damage -- Each town was required to prepare water in the basement. For purposes an estimate of damages within its juris- of estimating amounts of damage, the diction, broken down into 22 categories. number of residences in each category A form for recording and reporting the was multiplied by a dollar amount con3id- information along with instructions cred average for that category. The for preparing the estimates had been average dollar amounts used were: des- provided to the towns by OCP in Advisory troyed -- $90,000; major --$20,000; Bulletin 11-8 (11/80). As the towns minor -- $5,000. For some towns, dollar prepared their estimates, they telephoned estimates provided by local officials the results to OCP, where they were were used (29). tallied for use in preparing county and statewide estimates (16). The Department of Transportation worked with representatives from the State and Federal agencies surveyed Federal Highway Administration to estimate damages within their areas of responsi- damages to roads and bridges. The Depart- bility and reported the results to OCP. ment of Environmental Protection and The Department of Economic Development Department of Administrative Services (DED) surveyed industrial and commercial worked with representatives from the establishments in areas of the State U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Federal with severe flooding. Personnel from Environmental Protection Agency to estimate 37 damages to public buildings and other Private non- agricultural $204,691,000 Stateproperty. The Connecticut Department Agricultural 2,500,000 of Agriculture and the Federal Agricultural Public (State or Local Stabilization and Conservation Service Government) 69,491,000 provided estimates of agficultural damage ------------ m-- ........ W ............. (16). TOTAL $276,682,000 Damage estimates from these sources The formal request for a major were submitted toOCP from Monday through disaster declaration was submitted by Wednesday. OCP reviewed and compiled the Governor to the President on June the information according to the categories 10. It included a description of the needed for submission of a request for St ate agencies and resources involved a major disaster declaration. The total in the flood emergency, and an estimate damage estimate based on these rapid of various types of federal assistance surveys was $276,682,000, divided as that would be required to help recover follows (38): from the disaster. A copy of the complete request for disaster declaration is provided in Appendix C., CA L-J i pattaconk Brook cut new channels around this bridge over Route 148 in Chester (Photo courtesy of the CT Department of Transportation) 38 Very few injuries were recorded. The only official account of injuries FINAL LOSS ESTIMATES was prepared by the Red Cross which reported that 12 people suffered injuries, including one person who had to be hospi- DEATHS AND INJURIES tilized (31). Eleven flood-related deaths were recorded on Saturday and Sunday. All were drownings except for one heart MUNICIPAL LOSSES attack victim. Most of the deaths resulted from careless action. Four deaths resulted Damages to municipal facilities f rom persons attempting to ride inner were well documented. To receive rcimbursc- tubes or rafts down flood swollen streams. ment f rom the State and Federal governments Five deaths occurred when people attempted for damages to public property, each to cross flooded bridges, either on town had to carefully document all flood foot or in a vehicle. The circumstances related damages. These estimates were and locations of the flood-rclated deaths then verified by State and Federal agen- are shown in Table 3.1 (18,39). cies. Total damages determined eligible TABLE 3.1: FLOOD-RELATED DEATHS, STORK OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 TM AGE six INITIALS CIRCUMSTANCES BODY Bridgeport is M T.G. Tubing accident Recovered Clinton 68 M C.S. Swept off water covered Recovered bridge Clinton Unk F H.F. Heart attack while attempting Recovered to remove water from cellar Lyme 62 F J.T. Passenger in truck swept off Recovered bridge Middletown 20 M J.P. Rafting accident Recovered Milford 65 M W.G. Ranging onto auto swept into Not Recovered river New London 08 M C.L. Drowned in flooded cellar Recovered Orange 39 M R.V. Passenger in auto swept off Recovered bridge Redding 29 M W.B. Rafting accident Recovered Salem 18 F J.C. Swept off bridge while at- Recovered tempting to walk across Wallingford 15 M R.P. Tubing accident Recovered Source: Age. Sex, Location. and Circumstance of Flood-Related Deaths in Co3inecticut, June 1982. Toby Kircher, CT Dept of Health Services. 39 for disaster aid for all units of local from seven towns were etill pending ggvctnmcnt (102 towns, 10 3pccial dis- in Dcccmber, and a fcw additional appli- tricts, authorities and associations) cations were expected to be submitted totaled 013,167,132 as of December 1983 (41). The total reimbursable damages (40,41). Table 3.2. lists the losses will probably increase after all decisions by eight categories. Figure 3.1 displays on eligibility have been made. the total damages for each town. In many instances, the amount This damage total represents the approved by FEMA and OPM was less than amount of loss reimbursement requested requested by the towns. The approved by towns that had been approved by OPM, amounts represent FEMA's determination the Federal Emergency Management Agency of damages and other losses that were (FEMA) and the Federal Highway Administra- directly related to the June floods tion (FHWA) as of December 1983. Appli- and met all criteria established by cations to FEMA in the amount of $248,177 Federal regulations. Even though the TABLE 3.2: TOTAL MUNICIPAL FLOOD LOSSES BY CATEGORY OF DAMAGE DAMAGE CATMXY AMOUNT FEWOFN FENA TOTAL EMERGENCY ACTIVITIES DEBRIS CLEARANCE: on public roads and streets; $ 670,247 $ 79,6001 749,847 other public property; and on private property when undertaken by local government forces PROTECTIVE MUSURES: life and safety; health; 886,961 886,961 property; stream/drainage channels ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECOVERY ROAD SYSTEMS: roads; bridges; traffic control; 8,188,845 1,173,378 9,362,223 streets; culverts WATER CONTROL FACILITIES: dikes; drainage channels; 520.463 520,"3 levees-,dams; irrigation works PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT: public buildings; 256,481 256,481 supplies or inventory; vehicles or other equip- ment; transportation systems; higher education facilities PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEMS: water, storm drainage; 546,002 5",002 sanitary sewerage; light/power FACILITIES UNDER CONSTRUCTION: public facilities; 69,882 69,882 private non-profit facilities OTHER: park facilities; recreational facilities 775,973 775,973 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL $11,914.854 $1,252,978 $13,167,832 1 Includes all emergency and temporary work. Source: CT OPM flood files, and CT DOT listing of Damage Survey Reports. 40 FIGURE 3.1: MUNICIPAL FLOOD LOSSES REIMBURSED BY FEMA, OPH AND 27,140 7,997 31,978 9, 820 766 [email protected]" 904 is: 425 10,585 lole.- 45,837 53,607 147.50 20,672 25,927 32,736 281.787 16,593 275.475 31,243 33,29 20,2 9 120.01 20,911 21,77 44,341 51,778 20,395 -1ooo I I 141,271 36,899 102,081 239,091 1 42,088 137,698 154,311 14,75 90,725 341,412 70.756 1.56 103.71 - 15,033 ooor 255,791 435,961 66.186 72.498 '9 590,325 54, 101,511 9.49 -wk 0,820 37,721 71,35 45,978 18,859 1 993 $-- . .... 72.82 11 569,882 199.40 32,427 117,862 25,77 8,363 222,9 48,366 24 396,630 ft,L- swl- .11 1,130, 1 [email protected] 97,31 . ...... [email protected]'o 315,423 -- 147,308 71.94 1.49 t 0, 93,670 83 6 30,121 3 .59 10,108 14,0 2 439,554 89,906 238,163 4,346 Source: CT Office of Policy and Management, Damage Survey Reports; Su Administration Damage Survey Reports, from CT Department of T entire cost may not have been eligible design standards, In other instances, for reimbursement, towns often incurred towns incurred costs for which they repair or replacement costs for the did not submit applications, because full amount for which they applied. For they were aware that the costs would example, the Town of Old Lyme replaced be ineligible. (14,17). three bridges at a cost of $913,913, but was reimbursed only $835,184 because The total costs incurred by munici- the replacement bridges exceeded State paliti ,es for repair and replacement of flood damaged property beyond that -Tk -A 0 AMA: z: 3 [email protected] Trope r, t S d fiv I c 6 r W =;Sint t a tacc @.ii iii 'n @zi torica Mai: II Wn c can .:..u a - - 4, s ]@ ii z: 0 ord @,C- itki: em i:ii: rol'044:[email protected] U @411ii 6, d-i is a fio 1A.. aW iftch-10 h d a h4:@ f iii a iipep 0 4f 461- qqtpmenea uin: h, Vi e a r o W. a i e r:s eV Ind.. [email protected][email protected], -MOM04f; lef f !,!the h A*4C--M1.A V 4 i:i rcp t t.. -su; C o ut $-I ;[email protected] ....... AY-11.... no ice & A:,@ [email protected] rge :W. 3% if i v w,a e r coming: -Ho icia c a jx'@ grQ!G T ig:,[email protected])F,@ @i &B ecaus: was Inop t 1C. 'US, no r. ol, i Y @th f C t Rein., Y U _Crw Vei @:qu! A 4 in a 5tlmc:[email protected]:@ieturne @twpthe:@@i u.. t it e I Ar through: ;h e e 4:4 p ii6i @,N:" Wsem,env, @[email protected]id V-is 4 .nd @,f I o v t e as;emcin @[email protected] .ni,,c, a;t [email protected]' o:. [email protected] @:*iicrci 1;p,@i ""AY ii i. t! 401nitHemergen T46dit dd [email protected] I -. . - . ".I [email protected] 4 :2:,: : I abdut::@4' C .00 fm Wa [email protected]:H Y go::::, a n i:i at !i4a C a [email protected] ih bu ild I fi 'fast th ,1 , @@ @@ @@ @l M ii a 4 6,@C: h: instal tKiAD 31 of fit] fidi @[email protected] ik' Z.Ahe M a1h iiii ibeitrie,w.:[email protected]& no 6,[email protected]% iuniti: 71.. [email protected]: "A i @W ere: moye @tw: @:i t, [email protected]!! t1d e 0 [email protected]@ 5 4: t V poiar. @.i [email protected] 6 ice Ci i: W, Ate i ii C atht . t fiz t-PAIV me 1, 111 j! OV, y or iAt- A. i7i i-- @7 "Mi bout:::siey,0n f ce @eep::,:.''..:@[email protected]@:@@@:@@[email protected]@[email protected]@;"[email protected]:iit!II Vex' C 0. a is 9 @Ivfanunusc au ItOrlum d i te.e::::o ico ph, Y ...... M 'k mainct [email protected]@i bo teir izb uvt e umetoua o 41 dti"dd In' It, h @6ik6u iN Itsement 19918te CHM*[email protected] t A,X Th us an 0 Cr C:@: is t a C A 4f"@@ pi 1:@@:'@iiii]@:@@[email protected],o,;@:@tc'adzy!:@f:::: Joni: o, _ayiN...1--f6it: I.... mon [email protected] @[email protected] . ma ng e A I VIiUk- iidl:H or.jl Del M: d ichdoL b4ildin'' "Th c out [email protected] z::i In SAMe'ri. izerku Au u n tem too 42 reimbursed by Federal and State agencies STATE LOSSES was not determined. However, the approx- imate amount is indicated by a summary Several State agencies incurred of town applications and FEMA approvals. f lood related losses, either for damages Excluding the pending applications, to State property or for expenses of at least $800,000 was requested by towns assisting in the flood emergency. Total that was not approved by FEMA5 (40). State losses and emergency expenditures The totil non-teimbutsed costs were vcrificd and approved for reimburse- probably about one million dollars. mcnt by OPM, FEMA, and the Fcdcral Highway There was also no accounting of municipal Administration were $12,670,371 (40,41). administrative costs associated with These losses are listed by agency in flood recovery. No State or Federal Table 3.3 and by category in Table 3.4. agency was required to tally the total costs to municipalities. Chapter 6 Department of Transportation. TheDepart- provides details on municipal losses. ment of Transpottation!s (DOI) reported losses of over $12 million were by far TABLE 3.3: TOTAL REINBURSABLE FLOOD DAMAGES AND EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES BY STATE AGENCY AGENCY REI14BURSABLE DAMAGES OR EMERGENCY EXPENDTTURES Dept. of Children & Youth Services $ 11,505 Dept. of Consumer Protection 7,260 Dept. of Environmental Protection 506,855 Dept. of Mental Health 5,771 Dept. of Mental Retardation & Corrections 2,802 Dept. of Public Safety (CT State Police) 88,503 Dept. of Transportation 12,029,042 ($2,171,146 OPM/FEMA) ($9,857,896 FHWA) Univ. of Connecticut 8,633 Total $12,660,371 Source: CT Office of Policy and Management, 12/83; Federal Highway Administration, 9/83 43 TABLE 3.4: TOTAL REIMBURSABLE STATE LOSSES BY CATEGORY OF DAMAGE DAMAGE CATEGORY AMOUNT FEKA1OPK FHWA TOTAL EMERGENCY ACTIVITIES DEBRIS CLEARANCE: on public roads and streets, $ 34,300 $ 2o366,108' $ 2,400,408 other public property, and on priVate property when undertaken by local government forces PROTECTIVE MEASURES: life and safety; health; 413,208 413,208 property; stream/drainage channels ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECOVERY ROAD SYSTEMS: roads; bridges; traffic control; 2,020,959 7.491,788 9,512,747 streets; culverts WATER CONTROL FACILITIES; dikes; drainage channels; 13,210 13,210 levees;dams; irrigation works PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT: public buildings; 296,078 296,078 supplies or inventory; vehicles or other equip- ment; transportation systems; higher education facilities PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEMS: water, storm drainage; 14,132 14,132 sanitary sewerage; light/power FACILITIES UNDER CONSTRUCTION: public facilities; private non-profit facilities OTHER: park facilities; recreational facilities 10,588 10,588 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 2,802,475 9,857,896 $12,660,371 1 Includes all emergency and temporary work. Source: CT OPM flood files, and CT DOT listing of Damage Survey Reports. [email protected] Lill -4- R ,R 4 FEW Damage to bridge on Route 148 in Chester (Photo courtesy of the CT Department of Transportation) 44 the greatest. Most of these losses DOT reported damages of $755,291 were to State bridges and roads. Approx- to the State railroad system. The Water- imately 70 sections of State roads were bury Branch of the railroad was washed temporarily closed because of damages out in several places between Milford to roads and bridges, 30 State bridges and Waterbury causing damages of 0275,070. were damaged and hact to 6e repai'reJ, Passengers bad to be bussed from Bridwort and 17 State bridges were washed out to Waterbury for several weeks at a and had to be replaced. The distribution cost of $26,919 (not reimbursed by FEMA of damages to State roads and bridges as of December 1983). The collapse is shown in Figure 3.2. Table 3.5 lists of a culvert and catenary tower on the the State bridges that were damaged, main Conrail (now North-Metro) line and Table 3.6 lists those that were in West Haven cost $507,140 to replace. destroyed. DOT also reported expenses of approx- imately $21,000 for emergency flood relief efforts. (17,43) ot, 7. N [email protected] "N f, U0 @0_ 4*1 AIR [email protected] V Damage to bridge on Route 1 in East Lyme (Photo courtesy of the CT Department of Transportation) 45 FIGURE 3.2: DAMAGES TO STATE ROADS AND BRIDGES DURING STORK OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 ...... ..... 1,332 3.648 4,671 123,496 17,756 2,083 2,194 11.1 ...I ""SO, 1,408 1,339 1.409 3,695 6,156 1,316 2,379 3,241 2,350 776 4.6si 5,965 - 6,087 10,243 4.853 928 15,731 6,30- 3,437 949 384 2944 CV&4 3.158 1085 349 5.962 13,895 13.269 -a _w_' 7,573 4.07 1,290 1,891 2.359 2,567 8,676 2,621 3,"1 1,685 10.689 2,514 32,979 111,047 24,275 7,116 55,448 2,900 9.852 19.539 20.8 G."5 2.103 11,957 35.801 _'_.1 @m [email protected] 17,171 34.167 1.301,083 "1,234 e__ 23, 148 24,440 19,773 500 1,570 24,573 'Is ...w. so 32.58 11-c Is" 1,680 916.709 673,057 [email protected] 29,617 525.105 .360. 4 29.452 52,090 73,598 3.584 109,98 16.70 0.27 .273.04 73.333 45,937 48,23 89.74 mA 95.988 775,976 55,6 45 2,662 1,048 .1? 173,461 511.462 63,186 41,652 c'.." 58,113 Source: CT Office of Policy and Management, Damage Survey Reports for southern counties; Summary of Damage Survey Reports for northern counties from CT Department of Transport ation; and Summary of Federal Highway Administration Damage Survey Reports from CT Department of Transportation. TABLE 3.5: STATE BRIDGES DAMAGED DURING STORM OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 MIDGE TOWN LOCATION BRIDGE TOME LOCATION NO. NO. REPAIR BY CONTRACT REPAIR BY CONTRACT (CONT 'D) 02504 East Haddam Rte. 82 over Succor Brook 02937 Cheater S.R. 658 over Pattaconk Brook 1/2 roadway closed - upstream side 01380 Wallingford Ste. 150 over Quinnipiac River 02509 Lyme Rte. 82 over Brook 01880 Clinton Rte. I over Indian River 1/2 roadway closed - upstream side 02723 East Lyme Ste. 161 over Cranberry Meadow Brook 02710 Lyme Rte. 156 over Beaver Brook 1/2 roadway closed - upstream 01534 East Hampton Rte. 196 over Pocotopaug Creek side 02781 N. Stonington Rte. 184 over Shunock river 01391 Lyme Rte. 156 over East Branch Eight Mile River; 1/2 roadway closed - 00348 Westbrook Rte. 1 over Menunketesuck upstream side River 02711 Lyme Rte. 156 over Falls Brook 01555 N. Stonington Rte. 216 over Green Falls River 02673 Westbrook Rte. 145 over Menunketesuck --------------------------------------------- - - River REPAIR BY NAINTERME 00361 Groton Rte. 1 over Pequonnock River Roadway narrowed 01103 Bristol Rte. 72 over Pequabuck River 02510 East Haddam Rte. 82 over Strong Brook 01634 Bozrah Rte. 612 over Fitchville Pond 1/2 roadway to be closed - upstream side 01375 Lyme Rte. 148 over Whalebone Creek 01390 Lyme Rte. 156 over Eight Mile River 02539 Sale= Rte. 85 over Harris Brook 112 roadway closed - upstream side 02097 Haddam Rte. 9A over Rutty Creek 02715 East Lyme Rte. 156 over Pataganset River None - Woodbridge Rte. 69 over Brook 1/2 roadway to be closed - under upstream side 6' span 02692 Chester Rte. 148 over Fattaconk Brook 02443 Woodbridge Ste. 69 over Brook 112 roadway closed - upstream side 01853 E. Lyme Rte. I over Brook 01904 Waterford Rte. 1 over Jordan Brook 02507 E. Haddam Rte. 82 over Brook 1/2 roadway to be closed - upstream side 02505 E. Haddam Rte. 82 over Succor Brook Source: Memorandum to Edwin J. Fijol, Manager of Design, Bureau of Highways, CT Department of Transportation, from John F. Cavanaugh, Engineer, Bureau of Highways, 7/9/82. 47 TABLE 3.6: STATE BRIDGES Department of Environmental Protection. DESTROYED DURING STORK OF The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had reimbursable flood losses JUNE 4-7v 1982 of just under $500,000. Approximately $139,000 in damages were to State parks RIDGE TOWN 110M AD in the southern portion of the State. MO. DESCRIPTION Another $23,680 in damages occurred in State parks and to one State-owned dam in the four northern counties. 01327 Orange Rte. 121 over Most of the park damage consisted of Wepawaug River w ashed out sections of park roads. 00367 E. Lyme Rte. 1 over A number of culverts, pedestrian bridges, Latimers Brook and foot paths were also damaged. 02974 E. Lyme Rte. 1 over The largest portion of the DEP Latimers Brook reported damages were to the Valley 01402 Montville/ Rte. 161 over Railroad from Chester to Old Saybrook. E. Lyme T.L. Latimers, Brook The Valley Railroad is owned by the 02696 Chester Rte. 148 over State, but is leased to the Valley Railroad Pattaconk Brook Company for operation, and is a major 02694 Chester Rte. 148 over tourist attraction in the area. The Pattaconk Brook railroad suffered extensive damage to 00620 Deep River Rte. 9A over the tracks, embankments, and to the Deep River Falls River Bridge and Chester Creek Bridge. Total damages to the Valley 02508 Lyme Rte. 82 over Railroad were approximately $288,500. Roaring Brook (44,45) 03327 E. Lyme Rte. I over Four Mile River DEP also reported damages to 15 01134 Killingworth Rte. 80 over State-owned dams. The verified damages Menunketesuck Rv. resulting directly from the floods were 01135 Essex SR 602 over placed at about $11,600. Table 3.7 Falls River lists the State-owned dams damaged during 01137 Haddam Rte. 148 over the floods. Damages were caused by Ponset Brook overtopping and by high flows in the spillways which caused erosion of embank- 02693 Chester Rte. 81 over ment materials and displacement of mason- Pattaconk Brook ry. Two small dams failed completely, 02691 Chester Rte. 148 over but the others sustained only modest Pattaconk Brook damage during the floods. (46) 00619 Essex Rte. 604 over Falls River Other flood losses reported by 02713 E. Lyme Rte. 156 over DEP included $17,600 for emergency debris Falls River removal, 017,800 for emergency flood fighting (sandbagging, monitoring dams, 2500 Haddam Rte. 81 over etc.) on both State and private property, Salt Peter Brook and $8,200 for cleaning up a flood-related oil spill (44,45). Source: CT Department of Transportation 48 TABLE 3.7: STATE-OWNED DAMS DESTROYED OR DAMAGED DURING STORK OF JUNE 4-7r 1982 NAM LOCATION ESTIMATED FLOOD DANAGES1 INITIAL FINAL2 DAM FAILURES Mansure Pond Dam Chaplin $150,000 -3 Lower Joshuatown Lyme 50,000 -3 Pond Dam ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DAMS REQUIRING REPAIRS Beach Pond Voluntown 210,000 - Black Rock Watertown 5,000 - Lower Bolton Bolton 50,000 - Pachaug Griswold 5,000 - Higganum. Reservoir Haddam 15,000 $6,505 Gorton Pond East Lyme 5,000 735 Leesville East Haddam 15,000 1,258 Wharton Brook Pond Wallingford 10,000 832 Ross Wildlife Pond Sterling 3,000 - Gardner Lake Bozrah 5,000 - Bashan Lake East Haddam 15,000 1,732 Bibbins Pond Windham 2,000 - Pattaconk Reservoir Chester 5,000 576 Estimates for damages caused by June 1982 floods. Does not include total costs of repair, which in many instances will be much higher because of 2 other work needed which is unrelated to the June floods. Damages directly caused by June 1982 floods and eligible for disaster aid, 3 as determined by FEMA. Will not be rebuilt. Sources: Memorandum from Benjamin A. Warner, Director, DEP, Water Resources Unit, to Senator Eugene Skowronski and Rep. Teresalee Bertinuson, Co-Cha irper sons, Environment Committee, 6/25/82; OPM Public Assistance files; Wesley Marsh, DEP Water Resources Unit. 49 Other flood-caused damages reported by State agencies were minor. The Depart- ment of Mental Retardation and Corrections reported minor damages ($1,857) to the VALLEY @RIAMILR grounds and basement of the Seaside Regional Center in Waterford. TheDepart- ment of Children and Youth Services icu onnept damages to a sewage hifal C reported $11,505 Do @[email protected] it r iiifi:: m a [email protected] pumping station serving the Riverview P. ssmMNn ort Hospital for Children in Middletown. e. t he s [email protected]:*`Coii: The University of Connecticut campuses . .. .. ... ....... .. . in Hartford and Groton sustained damages en..z.: a c1.ziA.Hr1yie!r 04 P Lo ur of $8,633 to buildings and utilities (47). Figure 3.3 shows the location "...t rips .,:. of damaged State property. .,.,,some im e g, d ii xpti H Remaining flood-related expenses sex. io ithi li hi'[email protected] [email protected], if of State agencies were for emergency fif: V" and mbit: hz actions during flooding. The Depart- zz'' at roa t ment of Public Safety, State Police, z z I tid b':@ z ry: i T' incurred approximately $86,500 in expenses an @s d' h'd:@" e ou W for overtime emergency assistance and *cverar',4. [email protected] a o e S P'i i: Ic equipment damaged during the flood emer- b W1 ostx': !A-4ii, '[email protected]@iiidlv Ch;e:s gency. The Department of Consumer Protec- B reeW Ch'.iiti: tion had expenses of $7,260 for inspection C' :11 '% y all '4iiii'H [email protected] of damaged food and dzug products. a t t t t eVW @e aSe The Department of Mental Retardation W". C a: S: and Corrections had $945 expenses for [email protected]@n:[email protected]_, [email protected]:@[email protected]:@[email protected]@@@:zez):ii:@ ii @i i:* ii i: Mtge wel t;t! mcut al health aids who had to work overtime 'h because other shifts could not get to ';[email protected]@Itp PAX work (47). WeV Wit* Manpower costs reported by the i [email protected]::tn agencies included only overtime costs wo V ii e [email protected] ta t during the period of the actual flood emergency. Regular hours spent on flood related activities were not recorded U0, 6 t n i! i,jrg IL& [email protected] @e W: by all agencies and were generally not @i ij joe W available from agency records. L4_the'';@':ir4Ur. a bt` W V at I t 4 r a is [email protected]' it IT.:: @I r i'@@ 5 oXonv k ot FEDERAL LOSSES The only federal property affected by the June 1982 floods was the Amtrak W. railroad from New Haven to Old Saybrook. The heavy rains washed out the tracks h we U 50 FIGURE 3.3: STATE PROPERTY (EXCEPT ROADS AhD 6RIDG66) L)AAAGe-J'JUIt-LjW STORK OF JUNE 4-71 1982 Mansfield Hollow State Park Gay City Shenipsit Mashmoquet Brook State Park State Forest State Park Talcott Mountain Nesbaussic Lower Bolton Natchaug State Park State Forest Dan State Forest Quaddick State Park Bibbins Pond Dam 0 Salmon River State Forest University of Ross Marsh Connecticut Dan Hopesville Pond Riverview Hospital State Park Pumping St4tiou Pachaug Black Rock Dan Dan Beach Pond Wharton Brook Dan Dos Pacbaug Naugatuck State Forest state Forest Soutbford falls Gardner Lake State Park Dam Sleeping Giant [email protected] Fort Shantuk State Park State Park Nehantic State Forest Connecticut Valley ;:Z, Hospital University of Connecticut Pattaconk Reservoir Devil's Hopeyard Dam State Park Seaside Regional Cockaponaet Higganum Reservoir Lover Joshuatovu Center State Forest Dam Pond Dam Gorton Pond Dam t\\ Chatfield Hollow Leesville Dam Bashan Lake State Park Bashan Lake Dam Valley Railroad Source: Damage Survey Reports. CT Office of Policy and Management; and CT DFP, Water Resources in a number of locations, and the tracks the Connecticut Red Cross. OPM, in in New Haven were under water for several preparing the request for disaster decla- days. As a result, service on the Amtrak ration, used the estimates prepared line between New Haven and Old Saybrook by DOH because they were higher than was disrupted between June 5 and 10. the estimates OPM received from the During this time, buses were used to towns and the Red Cross. The DOH estimates transport passengers between stations included information supplied to it in New Haven and Old Saybrook. The by towns and the Red Cross, supplemented total cost to Amtrak to repair the damaged by windshield field checks of some areas railroad was approximately $667,000 by DOH personnel. DOH divided the resi- (48). dential losses into three categories and applied an average loss value to e ach. The initial DOH survey yielded the following estimates (49): PRIVATE LOSSES Destroyed 37 $ 3,564,000 Residences. Initial estimates of damages Major damage 1,538 28,248,000 to homes were made by individual towns, Minor damage 15,574 63,679,000 the Department of Housing (DOH) and --------------------------------------- TOTAL 17,149 $95,491,000 Washout under the Amtrak railroad tracks in Old Lyme (Photo by Doug Tiff t) 52 The locations of the estimated heating systems, were not always correct; housing damages are shown in Figure and DOH did not perform field checks 3.4. in all areas, but relied to a large degree on contacts with town officials The accuracy of both the number for their estimates of housing damages. and amount of estimated housing damages (29) is uncertain. Interviewswith Department A comparison of the damages reported of Housing personnel indicated that by DOH, by the individual towns, and they felt the estimates were the best by the Red Cross provides interesting they could arrive at given the short contrasts. The Red Cross made the lowest time period involved. Nevertheless, estimates of housing losses. Their potential problems with the estimates estimate, which was completed on June were acknowledged: floodwaters were 9 and covered 14 of the 30 Red Cross still high in some areas, and assumptions chapters in the St ate, indicated the about damages to basements, including following (31): Al -.A AW h 4b b M A Beach home in Old Lyme toppled when flood waters carved a channel alongside the house (Photo by Jack Sauer, The Day) 53 FIGURE 3.4: ESTIMATED HOUSING DAMAGES DUR ING STORK OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 0 r6 10 [4 37 130 -.2 140 [140 - 360 0 0 0 115 30 11, - 135 270 0 3 400 25 1 20 0 14 .. ..... [0 75 52 10 0 a 0 464 0 511- 190 11&20 250 100 155 2250 9"0 a 0 [6 60 2 0 0 1540 0 [14 0 0 4 1 560 20 0 $04 100 ISO 0 900 60 Housing Damages 0 540 0 No of homes destroyed greater than SZOPW 0 0 No of homes having major damage S5P00-$20,000 1 0 No of homes having minor damage law than $5P00 Source: CT Department of Housing Map prepared by CT DEP, Natural Resources Center, June 1982 Destroyed 26 Because of the very large dollar value Major damage 139 attributed to minor residential damages -- Minor damage 2,764 approximately one-fourth of the total --------------------------- initial estimated damages -- the total TOTAL 2,929 damage estimate for a flood disaster can be significantly affected by the OCP records of the estimates submit- accuracy of the estimates of minor housing ted by towns indicate a higher number damages. inaccurate estimates of the of homes estimated to be damaged, but number of homes and amount of damage a smaller dollar estimate (50): suffered can lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the need for floodplain manage- Destroyed 29 ment and flood control projects. Damaged 24,593 Cost $46,596,500 Businesses. Approximately 50 towns Interviews with town officials had businesses that suffered flood losses. during the preparation of this report The bulk of business losses, however, identified homes with minor and major were concentrated in only a few towns. damages in towns for which no residential Milford and Norwich each had around damages were recorded by DOH or OCP 50 businesses with damages. Chester, mediately after the flood. Essex, and Hamden each had 20 or more businesses damaged. Bridgeport, Berlin, There is a significant difference Clinton, East Haddam, Haddam, Madison, between the DOH and Red Cross estimates New Haven, Oxford, Seymour, Wallingford, of homes that suffered major damages. Waterbury, West Haven, and Woodbridge The greatest discrepancy, however, appears all had between 10 and 20 businesses to be regarding the number of homes with flood damages (52). Figure 3.5 that suffered minor damages. Estimates shows the approximate dollar amount of minor damages were usually made for of business losses by town. homes with basement flooding. Estimates of basement flooding were made by field Estimates of damages to businesses observations of areas flooded, and by were developed by Wednesday, June 10 the number of requests to fire departments by the Department of Economic Development to have basements pumped out. The estimate (DED). DED information was collected of $5,000 damage for each house with using a combination of interviews with minor damage assumed that the water affected business owners and telephone was deep enough to cause major damage contacts with town officials. OCP also to the heating unit and other basement obtained information on business losses contents. DOH personnel acknowledged as part of the flood loss data it collected that after the floodwaters subsided from each town. OCP data was based on and basements were pumped out, many the estimates telephoned to OCP by town homes had received only minor damage. officials. In preparing the request (29) for disaster declaration, OCP used the damage estimates supplied by DED. (16,28) Clearly, some improved procedure for estimating the number and amount The official estimates provided of damages to homes should be developed by DED to OCP on June 10 cited an estimated and used in subsequent flood disasters. $107 million in damages, including losses 55 to private utilities. This estimate of the disaster declaration request, was based on contact with 922 industrial and the final DED estimate for business and commercial firms. The report did losses was $92,691,000. OCP records not include an estimate of the number based on town reports showed damages of businesses with damages. The report of I82,900,50i to more than 419 busincs- also stated that an estimated 4,100 ses . This estimate included 11 businesses employees were out of work for a short with more than $1 million in total losses. period of time and another 1,200 employees The highest estimate for a single business would be without jobs for up to six was more that $15 million. weeks (51). No systematic, more detailed survey DED files, as of June 10, showed of business damages was performed after lower estimates of $89,376,000 in damages the flood emergency period when businesses to more that 416 businesses. This included would probably have had a more accurate $49,074,000 f or industrial concerns assessment of their losses. DED personnel and $40,309,000 for commercial business. did make follow-up visits to several DED continued to collect damage information affected businesses during subsequent for a few days following submission FIGURE 3.5: COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DAMAGES DURING STORK OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 . ....... ... 0 rareater thm s5poopoo S 4000PW - S 5POOAW Lou own swpw Source: CT Department of Economic Development Map prepared by CT DEP, Natural Resources Center, June 1982 56 weeks and months to find 'out how they Interviews with businesses conducted had recovered from the flood and to during the preparation of this report determine if DED could provide any assis- found some businesses in towns in the tance. A review of a f ew of these brief northern counties with substantial damages follow-up reports indicates that the that were not included in either the original estimates made by the busines- DED or OCP records. Interviews with ses were reasonably accurate. Inventory town officials also indicated that some loss estimates showed little change, businesses were damaged in other towns structural losses tended to be lower not recorded by DED and OCp7. than originally estimated, and loss of business estimates were often higher Businesses with damages ranging than initially estimated (28,52). from minor clean-up costs to almost BEVERAGE: SUPPLIER, Flood damages f otced a re 1al:bevetage one [email protected],@but was bl pon [email protected] shut, down. for: . @two. Gays. cos,e entrance @a- tthe ..o net endl- ...supp er Loca.te on& rivez. bank*. the plant Win-g; a ild [email protected] a t e r ,eves [email protected],';,xpcrienced::m,aJ*r flooding,. once jnislde thii building increasee -ectyon:: el 4: ets FloodIng: be &an around stock:: testing [email protected] 11 4r, U. P, n rodghl. m Saturday" no" e, bhi f [email protected] th [email protected][email protected] 'he be om notifle'd t h`e plant m a n a.gv u9 t, his, th it: buildi'fi ht gJv oln e.:'%t 4 nd box: ecame we 6 om!i oftes to: h at f looditi was. likci [email protected] :05 e pa n Os: e I t'c t f i ci t y, should::@bel or: bot e s coll a ps e4 @capAing..l ;;[email protected]::.I. dIft As waterninuedl: additional stoc -a erneen, @@turned: oU. By.,wi iiSe,_ employees and f amily members._ ateri @.bc [email protected]:. re;edei @@,j ,ant to atTIV e a at the P.1 help move [email protected] trucks Item :.the parking lot arid. load SC 3, C r:Ca0 U, 03 'pallets about e'ight inchis:::1- '9225.,000,:[email protected] udint. os.l.-inventory :te busi n ts s:@ 'off-the f loori, Work. was made.Aifficult 1: :s dredging::Fh 09.0 -0 ctnncl an :repa, @oebuddin g. h Ick of light t e a, dIr 6, 666:[email protected]: l6ss":vasiz,@ coveredl-, @receeSighti bFIF Intit Y rance [email protected] owper aPp 1: o.r...,an About, am Sunday, but by lite'@,ta rning 11 [email protected]: to an!,:@ to.": cover tem,aini g- .1 th d le t ey increase in vel @'and:: 1: 1 bu did:[email protected]@ qua 1 Y, tWu: v.C. ocity-,., @o,s s e 3 u3bing Waters eroded the: :riverbank [email protected]:, oan]1.an:d:jnstva4 obtained 0 unJ C, Cm n th [email protected] ao an commercia an Release An cgan,:@:t forl* a_ a oc-a sing: s a nQ Da g 4 ptovided by1 1 6 tht1urance. -won [email protected],[email protected], f [email protected]@@: U tape madeeowner. ::Corkstructlon: company, workers: tried t to @,prevent:. the. wall f rom: Collapsin @.of the.1lood art, awa.gis:@ n r. orce water: ha sjC re I P0:rcee 't,*dreiiiiic, pressure. f in e, dth wall ti An @.4 p @:th ncreii Iloor.. 6 f .*@4:.xive ....and [email protected] [email protected] ief:- Vough. CCO.1 "Ah. e::,: @;b 14 rl d in h''O't Six ft t4. shields on,. all:!:: entr ance s;, g,@, .,s, o, ing wa 0 cing:@:,::Ji a WA Cr tivero, nl.. iv:uii lt6odg;[email protected]@;@thi inches into the air., A:t sincreased ot @en s h, If ft'C gn't [email protected]@a e n t r an cc s b,h d P! it ii & s a n .,,,,,company nl y. ereopene to e t, @t e.Ansi el :o t: [email protected] 1:6c J'the ui dingm I h o b fhe,a pressure d.-:@:aels: withi' thi::water flow throughand -ease ,a ll: stock on, ra.ise p e':. w a e, sa dit e, IZ4 on:. th lis db in t rough. major flood water. came:. h L 57 ICATU $1.5 million were interviewed during FIBER i: @COMMUN JW']ING!:1,fl "-H preparation of this report. With the exception of those in Norwich, most 0 @Wor 8: atte of the businesses did not receive flood warnings from town officials. Becaus Ic ibi el T [email protected]:'i d ia:@[email protected]:: w? lit a 641. asoi,pr9'4uc,eV e b' CA the heavy rains and flooding occurred a.n,,.,:.,:is- oc a t, ed [email protected] w t s* V,; entirely over a weekend, with the worst b itik: Of Quififilpi [email protected] [email protected]; W: flooding late Saturday and early Sunday, w;a r thous; ip ac.eii Ndn:: t e :e: asrf,[email protected]@b4* k.zqA; many of the businesses were closed and @[email protected]@c.q [email protected],[email protected] no one was at the site. [email protected]::Iev-e oo ing::;@[email protected]@@[email protected]@,[email protected]@:@,.,'equipme:n.t @i-:Yair u, o o in b.. t round m1i ni & .a tu A The businesses in Norwich and t ,J:@. j Bridgeport had experienced serious flooding 57 @Vater to.se:: to: cor&-hIghs:i. &U& a,@ Ow 1ruc 'WaV' [email protected]:[email protected]@ ns before, and some took preventive actio k t 'd Vehic: 115 i:;*@@ [email protected] [email protected]: ya; such as sandbagging, removing vehicles from the site, and raising inventory eaou ttin [email protected] f Ou: r f, supplies and equipment. Others were @N [email protected],;@w ic OuSe::: O:@ 9: t: to, @oviefit,,,, unaware of the flood potential until am, Malin ul ngi @:i: to V w a: e r it was too late. Previous experience N,@N. b d1): g:a:: n: fl:[email protected] to t, dpi iht6i4h ,price J,:: oof @i @i [email protected] ;!q ;p. h1- k' W. @-k il M,[email protected][email protected] to: "A t::::::ip"[email protected]@:@itut iq&i:[email protected] 1 jj 411 'U. Imea1g, Pi hie: i": w. e re.. M [email protected] 1! Von; @1 ,6 t4 by I t ainc e lV1::,[email protected],tV 'i [email protected] iva emins Ilk- 0 -0 W43 @A:O:`AU 3fI OtY @[email protected]@ rio r 4A,i, id:::@ th ho e gd v,@[email protected]@Itt i:@i jnciu @e %je t4ctfontvw`41;. i I an in, omp4ntnt su a:tifiij:@f& il" 11" quip", 4d::i ;?,@ [email protected] ,,iwet.ch.a,,[email protected]'' TO e nitCi:,,:P r eytntca: muc ti, 0 U. 8 14` @1'btxn 9. A sid: e: tt-main, izic1p: If AA tlk w at, f t he isix inc t4tht hh Id" . ...... NN @i ii:AA, 4m ii n.0 T Fibeiilii.;@ @iih Obj Do Rum, &,Piract Oct 4"A0104" t;a, t4h U'deh: it '0 coC K' @i h' 0 Damage to the Pratt Read factory in Ivoryton (Photo by Danny Hyland) 58 with floods was an important factor auditorium, study hall, library, kitchen in deciding what action to take. Based and dining room. The Waterford Country on the level of past floods, few expected School in Waterford had damages of $23,767, floodwaters to reach as high as they including minor equipment losses and ultimately did, and much of the damage erosion of a road and bridge on the reduction effort was wasted as water property. (55) rose above the sandbags and the level to which contents had been raised. In locations that had experienced higher Private utilities. Private water compa- floods in recent years, loss reduction nies, Northeast Utilities and United efforts were more successful as businesses Illuminating electrical companies, and tried to protect their property to the the Southern New England Telephone Company previous high watermark. Manybusinesses (SNET) sustained losses from the June had never before experienced flooding f loods. Broken and exposed water lines and were completely unprepared. caused by washouts along roads were the principle damages suffered by private water companies. The most severely Nonprofit organizations. OPM and FEMA affected private water utility was the received requests for reimbursement ConneetieUt WVer Company which operates of damages from a few nonprofit organiza- 11 systems serving 26 towns. It incurred tions. Only two were determined to costs of more than 0420,000 in flood be eligible. The Northeast Academy damage repairs and clean-up (56). Other of Jewish Studies in New Haven sustained seriously affected water suppliers were $169,535 in damages to the lower level municipal or regional water authorities, of the school. Equipment was destroyed such as the South Central Connecticut in a science lab, audio-visual room, Regional Water Authority. All V 7;?'@_- 7- A Z, F, Notional Guardsmen prepare an emergency stream crossing in Ivoryton (Photo by Danny Hyland) 59 Because there were no high winds The United Illuminating Company reported associated with the storm, damages to losses of about $313,000 for repair telephone and electrical utilities were of damaged facilities, overtime and not severe for a storm of this magnitude. contractural costs. Most of the damages Some telephone and electrical lines were to a flooded substation in the were damaged, however, as trees and Westville section of New Haven, and utility poles were downed by rushing for replacement of a transmission structure floodwaters, erosion and saturated soils. in West Haven. About 5,300 customers SNET reported that about six thousand were affected, all but about 500 in customers were without telephone service New Haven and West Haven. Service was for varying periods. Approximately first interrupted at 7:45 am, June 6, half of these were in Essex. The remainder and restored to all customers by 12:18 were spread across the State, with Hamden am, June 8. (57) Northeast Utilities and the Westville section of New Haven indicated it did not suffer major losses, being hard hit. Total costs to SNET but no detailed estimates were available were about $1 million (57). for this report (58). Newspapers reported [email protected] z N [email protected] -Ogl IN x Tantumorantum Road in East Haddam washed out when floodwaters carved a channel around the Middle Pond Dam (Photo by Bill Phyler) 60 mote than 30,000 electrical customers service, SCS and others. These initial were without service at some point during estimates were placed at about $2.5 the storm. million. Figure 3.6 shows the distri- bution of estimated agricultural damages throughout the State. Later estimates Agriculture. Agricultural damages were by ASCS placed damages as follows: duc plimarily to the intense and exces- sivc rainfall which caused sheet and Crop losses $3,991,000 gully erosion, battering of crops, and Crop land 311,000 crop losses due to submersion and excessive Structures 15,000 moisture. Initial estimates of agriculture --------------------------- damage were gathered by the U.S. Agricul- TOTAL $4,217,000 tural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) based on information In addition to these quantifiable supplied to them by various agricultural losses, ASCS estimated that an undetermined organizations, such as dairy agents, amount of additional agricultural losses horticulture experts, county ASCS extension FIGURE 3.6: AGRICULTURAL DAMAGES DURING STORM OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 EM Severe Moderate No domoge or agricufture Source: U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Service, Hartford, Ct, June 16, 1982 Map prepared bv CT DEP, Natural Resources Center, June 1982 61 probably several million dollars By f ar the greatest damage to resulted from leaching of nutrients, dams occurred in Deep River and Essex, especially nitrogen, from the soil and where the privately owned Bushy Hill from loss of topsoil (46). Dam burst and caused or contributed to the subsequent destruction of several other dams further downstream on the Privately Owned Dams. In addition to Falls River. This series of dam failures the State and municipal dams that were resulted in devastating damages to the damaged, several privately owned dams Ivoryton and Centcrbrook sections of were either destroyed or damaged. Table Essex. At the time of the June floods, 3.8 lists the municipal and privately the Pratt Read Corporation, owner of owned dams that were destroyed or damaged the Bushy Hill Dam, was under orders during the floods, and Figure 3.7 identi- from DEP to repair the dam based on fies their location. The DEP Water findings from the COE Non-Federal Dam Resources Unit estimated damages to Inspection Program. An emergency opera- private and municipal dams at about tions plan was also supposed to have $2.5 million. No accurate cost estimates been prepared. Numerous lawsuits by were available for these privately owned downstream residents and property owners dams. (60) were filed against the Pratt Read Company as a result of the dam failure. (18,21) . . . . I I I I I I I I NP- 1" 6, - W'4" -7 4 Bushy Hill Reservoir in Ivoryton after the dam burst (Photo by Bill Phyler) 62 TABLE 3.8: MUNICIPAL AND PRIVATELY-OWNED DAMS DESTROYED OR DAMAGED DURING STORK OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 LOCATION ESTIM&TED FLOOD DAKAGESI DAM FAILURES Bronson Company Dam Beacon Falls $ 10,000 Bushy Pond Clinton 30,000 Bushy Hill Reservoir Deep River 1,000,000 Comstock Pond Essex 500,000 Mill Pond Essex 100,000 Falls River Pond Essex 50,000 Main Street Pond Essex 100,000 Ivoryton Pond Essex 100,000 Forman Pond Granby 30,000 Holbrook Pond Lyme 100,000 Whalebone Creek Pond Lyme 10,000 Lower Mill Pond Old Lyme 10,000 Johnson Pond Westbrook 50,000 Deer Lake Killingworth 100,000 Upper Pond Haddam 50,000 DAMS REQUIRING REPAIRS Mill Creek Old Lyme 10,000 Dolan Pond Essex 50,000 Dennison Pond Essex 50,000 Urban Pond East Haddam 10,000 Schreiber Pond Chester 5,000 Hunts Brook Watertown 10,000 H&R Engineering East Haddam 15,000 Crystal Lake Old Saybrook 5,000 Jennings Pond Chester 25,000 Columbia Lake Columbia 20,000 Pratt Read Deep River 25,000 Rocky Glen Newtown 5,000 Upper Pond Hebron 5,000 Unnamed Pond Haddam 10,000 Abbott Pond Chester - Shady Brook Pond East Haddam - Hempstead Pond Groton - Upper Mill Pond Old Lyme - Estimates for damages caused by June 1982 floods. Does not include total costs of repairs, which in many instances may be much higher. Sources: Memorandum from Benjamin A. Warner, Director, DEP Water Resources Unit, to Senator Eugene Skowronski and Rep. Teresalee Bertinuson, Co-Cha irper sons, Environment Committee, 6/25/82; Letter from Wesley D. Marsh, DEP Water Resources Unit, to Rey S. Decker, Hoskins-Western- Sonderegger, Inc., Lincoln, NB, 6/14/83; Wesley Marsh, DEP Water Resources Unit. 63 FIGURE 3.7: MUNICIPAL AND PRIVATELY OWNED DAMS DESTROYED OR DAMAGED DURING STORM OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 Bronson Company Pond Forman Pond Columbia Lake Rocky Glen Upper Pond Upper Pond Shady Brook Pond ...... Jennings Pond Abbott Company Pqond Urban Pond Whalebone Creek ]Pond ratt Read Busby Hill Reser-roir alls Rivey Pond UN ennison Road Poind Ian Pond Upper Hill Pond Lower Mill Pond Rempatead Pond Hill Pond Crystal Lake Ivoryton Pond Deer Lake Main Street Pond Busby Pond Johnson Pond Comstock Pond Source: Memorandum from Benjamin A. Warner, Director, DEP Water Resources Unit. to Senator Eugene Skovroaski and Rep. Teresalee Bertinuson, Co-Chairpersons, Environment Committee, 6/25/82; Letter from Wesley D. Plarsh, DEP Water Resources Unit, to Rey S. Decker, Book in 9-Weat ern-Sonderegger. Inc., 1imcoln, NB, 6114/83; &at Wesley Marsh, CT DEP. Water Resources Unit WATER POLLUTION Immediately after the flooding, the AGO: DEP Water Compliance Unit checked with each of the 85 municipal sewerage systems h- th iit 9- in the State and with many private indust- t Acl Sta ties to identify those that had suffered f damages. DEP f ound some damage to about fltiki: the:: Q01hiol it 30 municipal systems and four industrial [email protected]:[email protected] OUA S 0 t t to t Zee.lfeit:[email protected] tge-, [email protected]@:, systems. Most damages were minor. A c, th t t a I -c Onfir 61! b ul: 6U:: ihi 1:::1:1-:.. i, X - - :- ii number of the facilities in older urban Wil [email protected]:@@ com- areas were overloaded because of the existence of combined sewers, and assed p -len ete inoper a e out d,d untreated, but highly diluted water, Cet: 0water [email protected] I MAIWIM,ot ul 1U19--11 directly to streams. Other systems [email protected] Aht @6 t' h ut- 0-- :,@It... were rendered inoperable for a period a 3: com 41'': il: of time. The most sevefely damaged cr. i n for:: s [email protected] e W aukal "t, t up municipal facility was the Cheshire ,0 [email protected] [email protected]::to operat-:1 Sewage Treatment Plant and the main pumping station in Cheshire. Only one 1i4.apidii?',W-ori private system sustained severe damage. *@@;z:p @ [email protected], ssiste h lint sta a by!pDEV: th, -Watet::: ompl, an, rsr. Based on their findings, the Water er,estorat 0 primary, With hl' Compliance Unit issued notices that treilibtht Ic 0 a er on w 0:::: dA. y 9 Sin t, rivers and streams and sections of 16 3 harbors receiving discharges from V ant,, A eectrbcily,@DEP 4ss1st:c 1 n 0taining. ail.l. gaso in e pow eeed:,: these damaged or overloaded systems pot a niirbi: Me rid en: t,ble, pump.from t should be considered contaminated. at W a r e is to, ue ST P:: a rid[::. A Shellfish beds were also closed in some eAvalla e aaavt 10#44-1: Own rmad. locations by State or local authorities [email protected] d, U am gene:za o -3 t because of the waste discharges or the plah'[email protected]@all excessive rainfall and runoff which out: [email protected] femov:e&AL d, ;@,@@!equil ce- e ri normally carries high levels of sedi Mefit, pit d:::, iment @ij- [email protected] and contaminants into estuaries and t fid rep acet ire:iirftent w a restore -1 coastal waters. two weeks By Thursday, June 10, DEP removed d X, se.con MA t 'to em, the contamination notices from most Idh @invo ve t C main: $,tatioft:z, of the streams. Notices for the remainder o; nson:. ve.: w [email protected]::.wlas;..i'n':aurtdatea,e U: weel of the streams were removed by the begin- and.... inop. a f I k ble or: sever ning of the next week. Figure 3.8 shows '',STP-1.4taft er:::@::-!r ucki:@:i 46 ump ng:[email protected]@:[email protected] V the location of the damaged sewerage P 4 W4 VIA" rom:, systems and the water bodies that were Pke he!:@ioilec 101 ia:s in into:::t e [email protected] [email protected]]i:@ considered contaminated (22,61). Int e: to thi ''of th t:: a. o u: t1:1 4-, fo and then [email protected]:4nto--, mag RveIr .ion Kina t S T 65 FIGURE 3.8: SEWIERAGE SYSTEMS AND WATER BODIES AFFECTED BY STOIRM OF JUME 4-7, 1982 ny Brook Frenc River Sal Wi limant v r Farm ngton Ri er Hoc Riv Qui baug Iver e b c k- -j r Shetucket Ri er C-L. [email protected] ..L.. r4- Th m Connect'cut Ri er ----Qui ipiac Ri r Nau River Housa uJic R Fenger Brook Norw r N v Haven Harbor Branford Harbor ilford Point to Sewage treatment plant failures or by-posses Welches Point Water quality impaired (predominantly due to sewage treatment plant failures) Bridgepor-t Harbor 0 Shellfish orea closures Source: CT DEP, Water Compliance Unit and Natural Resources Center files Stamford Harbor 3.9 shows the total damages that the COE estimates were prevented by its DAMAGES PREVENTED flood control projects in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont (62,63,64). FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURES Numerous flood control projects FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT have been constructed to control flooding in streams in Connecticut. Stream improve- Observations and interviews indicated ments, such as widening and straightening that total damages resulting from the channels and the addition of riprap, June 1982 flooding, while very large, have been performed on many streams were less than might have been expected thtoughout the State by towns, acting given the amount of rainfall and the on their own or with State assistance. record discharges that occurred in many Larger flood control projects have been streams. If the estimates of business developed by the U.S. Army Corps of and residential damages are close to Engineers (COE) and the SCS in cooperation accurate, then the greatest dollar value with the State. These projects include of damage occured to businesses and channel improvements, small detention residences. Business damages were concen- basins, and larger flood control reser- trated in a few towns that received voirs. record flooding -- greater than 200- year return frequency. Very little information was avail- able on the effectiveness of these flood The very high estimate of housing control projects in preventing flood damage resulted largely from thousands damages. Interviews with town officials of flooded basements. Much of this indicated their confidence that flood basement flooding was caused by saturated losses would have been much larger in soils rather than from overbank flood- the June 1982 floods if the town had ing. Many of these homes frequently not previously undertaken local stream suffer basement flooding during heavy improvements for flood control. However, rains, and their basements were simply there were no systematic estimates of flooded to a greater depth during the how much damage was prevented by these June 1982 floods. But basement flooding flood control projects. was also much more widespread during the 1982 floods. The record amounts The Corps of Engineers did develop of rainfall, combined with previously data on prevention of flood losses by saturated soils from rain in late May, projects in which it participates. caused basement flooding in many homes Most of the COE flood control projects that had not previously been flooded. in Connecticut are located in the Connect- icut, Thames, Naugatuck and Housatonic Even the road damage was mostly River basins. Many of these projects caused by rapid runoff and washouts were constructed in the 1960's in response rather than overbank flooding. Washed to major flooding of these basins during out and damaged bridges were the major 1954 and 1955. Figure 3.9 shows the losses resulting from excessive stream- location of thc6c projcco, and Tablc flow, All of the bridges that were 67 FIGURE 3.9: LOCATION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS IN CONNECTICUT SkISBURV BANK PROTECTION (Fj- -WAIN CANX&M LOCAL PROTECTION (F) COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE it)-- RIVER DAN (F) WINSIED CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT (F WEST THOMSON LAKE (F) - SUCKER BROOK BAN (f HALL MADOU BROOK DAMN (F EAST MICH DAN (F) IORRINGTC,N LOCAL PROTECTION HARTFORD LOCAL PROTECTION (F) LAS I eRANC4 MAUGATVCK AT VtR (F) TORR.'NGTON LOCAL PROTECTION - VEST RANCH NAUGATUCK RIVER (F) EAST NUtFORD LOCAL PROTECTION (F) MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE (F) IPOMSTM CAM (F)- WETHERSFIELD LOCAL PROTECTION (F; *-'RTHfIEL0 BROOK LAKE (F)-\ WETHERStIftu C VE (M) BLACK ROCK LAKE (f)-lb p --41ANCOCK BROOK LAKE (F) WATER RY-UATMOVM [email protected]@U Y L Al. PROTECTION (F) COPMECTICUT RIVER :LOW HARTFORD (N) kORWIC" CHAN-4EL MOP BKOK LAKE (F)-A IKPROV EMF;4T (F) RIVER CHANNEL (N) PAWCATIXK HURRICARC PROTECTION (H) EIGHTMILE RIVER (M) WSTIC RIVER (N) AI'S0IIIA THAMES RIVER (14) CA;48URY LOCAL PROTECTION (F) ESSEX COVE (N) LOCAL PROTECTION (f) DERBY LOCAL PROTECTION (F1 PAWCATUCK RIVER CONN. & R.I. (R) K0kTH COVE (M) STONINGTON HARBOR (N) RIANrIC BAY NEW LONDON HARLON (M) A HARBOR (9) NEW LONDON HOUSATONIC RIVER (R PATCHOGUE RIVER IN) INNIRICAME PROTECTION (MI ST014Y CREEX (9) DUCK ISIAND HARBOR (M) V0812VAT NORWALK CHANNEL BRANFORD HARBOR ("I CLINTON HAR80k (M) IMPROVEMENT (FI LIGHTWEIUSE POINI BEACH (5) MMORASSETT BEACH (S) COVE I'LAW (5) NEW HAVEN HARBOR (N) MIDDLE BEACH (S) ORFAKWATERS $t NEW HAVEN (M) GULFORD POINT BEACH (S) CUMMI4GS PARK (S) PROSPECT BEACH (S) 5. AMFM HURRICANE WOODMONT SHORE (S) GUILFORD HARBOR (11) PROTELTION (H) !OG[PORI NARBOR (N) GUL F BEACH (S) SEASIDE PARK (S) MILFORD HARBOR (R) Type of Project FEMBERWICK JENNINGS BEACH I AS% CREEK (S) SILVER BEACH to CEDAR BEACH (S) LOCAL PROTECTION (F) SASCO HILL BEACH (S) SW!qT BEACH (S) PORT CHESTER HARBOR (N)-j SOUTHPORT HARBOR (N) (N) Navigation GREEMWICH MAkBOR ( MIA'IV- RIVER tIVEMILE 9 SOUTHPORT BEACH (5) (S) Shore Protection IVIR 'U"B" (N) BLIRIAL MLL BEACH (S) EVER '0 BON (N EVER '0 BON ( STANFORD HARBOR (M WILSON POINT NAR:OR SHERWOOD ISLAND STATE PARK (S) WE STCQTT COVE (N) MORUALK 'WBOR (N COMPO B&MH (S) (F) Flood Control CALF PASTURE BEACH (S) WESTPORT HARBOR & SAUGATUCK RIVER (m) (H) Hurricane Protection Source: Section 406 Hazard Mitijzation Implementation Measures. State of Connecticut, June 1983 TABLE 3.9: DAMAGES PREVENTED BY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FLOOD CONTRDL PROJECTS, STOEM OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 THAMES RIVER BASIN NAUGATUCK RIVER BASIN [email protected] ]NAME YEAR COW COST (millions) LOUTION - - ILETED PROJECT NAME YEAR COMPLETED COST (millions). LOCATION Hall Meadow Brook Dan 1962 $3.1 Volt Bramch, Naugatuck River Norwich LPP 1949 $1.3 Shetucket River Torrington, CT Norwich, Cr East Branch I)aa 1964 $2.6 East Bramch, Naugatuck River East Brimfield Lake Dam 1960 $7-0 Quinebaug River Torrington. CT Sturbridge, MA Thomaston Dan 1960 $14.2 Naugatuck River West Thompson Lake Dam 196S $6.9 Quinebaug River Thomastain. CT West Thompson. CT Blackrock L^X* Dam 2970 $3.1 Branch STook Mansfield Hollow Dam 1952 $6.4 Natchaug River Thomaston/[email protected], CT Mansfield, CT Northfield Brook Lake Dam 1966 $2.2 Northfield Brook Westville Lake Dam 1962 $5.6 Quinebaug River Thomaston. Cr Southbridge/Sturbridge, MA Hancock Brook LALke Dan 1966 $4.1 Hancock Brook Hodges Village Dan 1959 $4.4 French River Plymouth, CT Oxford, MA Hop Brook Laske Dan IOU $6.0 Hop Drool[ Buffurville Lake Dam 19S8 $3.0 Little River Middlebuxy/Naugatuck/ Charlton. MA Waterbury, CT Ansonia LPP 1973 $18.8 Naugatuck River TOTAL DAMAGES PREVENTED LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECTS ------------------ $4,739,000 Ansonia. CT TOTAL DAMAGES PREVENTED DAMS AND RESERVOIRS ----------------------- $40.530,000 Derby LPP 1973 $8.1 Housatonic/Naugatuck Rivers Derby. CT TOTAL THAMES RIVER BASIN DAMAGES PREVENTED -------------------------- $45,269,000 TOTAL DAMAGES PREVENTED - LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECTS ------------------ $5,242,000 CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN including the main stem, the Farmington River and Westfield TOTAL DAMAGES PREVENTED - DAMS AND RESERVOIRS ---------------------- $94,090.000 River Tributaries. 70TAL KAUGA-"CK RIVER WIN DAMAGES PltEVENTED ----------------------- $89,331,000 PROJECT NAME YEAR COMPLETED COST (millions) LOCATION Hartford LPP 1944 $8.8 Connecticut River GIUND TOTAL (including Park River) 1981 $60.1 Hartford, Cr LDCAL PROTECTION PRWECTS -------------- $37,641,000 East Hartford LPT 1943 $2.4 Connecticut River DAMS AND RESERVOIRS ------------------- $138,078,000 East Hartford, CT GRAND TOTAL ----------- --------------- $175,719.000 Colebrook River Lake Dam 1969 $14.2 W. Branch, Connecticut River Colebrook, Cr Barre Falls Dan 19se $2.0 Ware River Barre. MA Knightville Dam 1941 S3.2 Westfield River Huntington, MA Littleville Lake Dan 196S $7.0 Middle Branch, Westfield River Huntington, MA Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Erigland Division Birch Hill Dam 1942 $4.8 Millers River South Royalston, MA Waltham, MAs, News Release 82-343, 8/18/82 Tully Lake Dam 1949 $1.5 East Branch, Tully River Royalston, NA Had River Dan 1963 $5.6 Mad River Winchester, CT Sucker Brook Dan 1970 $2.7 Still River Winchester. CT TOTAL DAMAGES PREVENTED - LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECTS ---------------------- $17,163,000 TOTAL DAMAGES PREVENTED - DAMS AND RESr.RVOIRS ---------------------------- $8,820,000 TOTAL CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN DAMAGES PREVENTED -------------------------- $25,983,000 lost were small. Most were old and which usually were received two or three wcrc dc3igned and constructed before times each year, and almost no one expetted current design standards were in place. the magnitude of flooding that actually occurred. Most town officials relied Interviews with town officials upon their experience with previous in the less populated areas of the State floods to determine what emergency actions indicated that, even when they had near were needed. But, in south central record flows, very little damage occurred Connecticut, previous floods were of to homes and businesses other than basement lesser magnitude than those of June flooding. This was attributed to rcgula- 198Z. tions restricting development in flood- plains. Most of the major damage to Town officials provided warnings buildings in floodplains was in the to residents only when flooding was older, more urban towns, where development imminent. As a result, few people were occurred before current floodplain regu- instructed or had time to prepare for lations. the floods by moving furnishings from homes or relocating inventory from busines- ses. In general, towns did not have flood warning plans that provided for this type of notice to residents and FLOOD WARMNGS businesses. Warnings were intended solely for timely evacuation of people Flood warnings provided by town as a life saving measure, and did not officials enabled some property owners include provisions for reduction of to reduce their flood losses. The most property losses. notable instance of prevented losses was a camera shop in Norwich that was Even in Norwich, which did provide able to move a $100,000 piece of photo- early warnings of flooding, the warnings graphic equipment when the owner received were not totally effective because the warning of flood potential from the floods were of a greater magnitude than Norwich Civil Preparedness Office (4,12). had been experienced before. Some mer- In Bridgeport, two automobile dealerships chants took action to prevent flood greatly reduced their flood losses by losses, only to see their efforts go removing most of their cars from the to waste because floodwaters exceeded sites. However, their action did not the level to which they had sandbagged result from official flood warnings, or raised inventory. but was based on previous flood experi- ences. Most businesses interviewed Flood warnings combined with subse- indicated that they received no advance quent evacuation and rescue efforts warning from local officials. proved effective in preventing injuries and loss of life. Most residents received In most towns, very little advance warnings in time to avoid being trapped warning of the severe flooding was avail- intheithome. Unfortunately, not everyone able to town officials, and therefore, heeded these notices, and rescue efforts to residents and business owners. Although were necessary in some areas. almost all of the towns were aware that the NWS had issued flood warnings, the It is clear that considerable warnings were no different than those improvement can be made in Connecticut's 70 flood warning systems for small streams. The Norwich example indicated that, with a good warning system and a proper SUMMARY OF LOSSES preparedness plan, effective action can be taken. It also highlighted the necessity for accurate information regard- In preparing this report, each ing the magnitude of flooding and that of the Federal a nd State agencies with floodplain occupants must have confidence responsibility for collecting flood in the flood projections. Flood forecasts damage information was contacted to and warning systems need to be established try and obtain an accurate accounting for smaller streams subject to flashfloods of the total damages inflicted by the and not limited to the major river systems. June 1982 floods. After OCP compiled the initial damage estimate of $276,682,000 After the June 1982 floods, NWS as part of the request for a major disaster worked with the Town of Essex to develop declaration, no systematic, updated a flood warning system similar to the survey of all flood losses was performed. one used in Norwich. Local observers As a result, 18 montbs after the disaster were supplied with plastic raingages it was impossible to determine the actual to measure the rainfall in the immediate dollar value of damages caused by the area, and NERFC prepared charts that June 1982 floods. Table 3.10 summarizes allows prediction of flood levels based the available loss estimates. Although on actual and predicted rainfall. The no precise, final figure could be deter- NWS also empbasized the need for automated mined, the total loss was probably between flood warning systems that can provide $230 and 240 million. a central State or local flood preparedness coordinator with instantaneous records TABLE 3.10: SUMMARY OF FLOOD LOSSES of rainfall and water levels in streams. It feels that an automated system is State Losses 12,670,000 much more reliable and accurate than a system relying on volunteer observers Municipal Losses 13,356,000 who may not always be available (7). Non-Profit Organizations 193,000 Businesses 92.691,000 Residences 95,491,000 Temporary Housing 800,000 Disaster Unemployment Asst. 424,000 Private Dams 2,490,000 Agriculture 4,217,000 Emergency Stream improvements 3,465,000 Amtrak 667,000 Tax Abatements 55,000 SUBTOTAL $226,943,000 Unaccounted for losses including autoa, boats, and municipal and State administrative expenses: $3-10 million TOTAL $230 - 240 million 71 Reasons for the lack of updated It was not assembled with the purpose estimates include: of contributing to the larger perspec- tive of verifying total flood losses. (1) Final estimates are not reguirgd. The initial estimate of flood losses (6) Methods of storing and re- was prepared for the specific purpose dAlk. Even when information on actual of obtaining Federal disaster assis- flood losses was collected by agencies, tance. The Federal government did not it was usually not stored and reported require a final, accurate accounting in a manner that permitted convenient of all flood losses. No State agency extraction of the data for purposes had a responsibility to prepare revised, other than reporting total assistance total estimates. An accurate determi- provided. For example, information nation of actual damages was required often was not computerized, requiring only when a municipality or State agency review of hundreds or thousands of indi- desired reimbursement for flood losses vidual assistance applications to retrieve from the Federal government (or special information on damages incurred as opposed State funds), or when a private individual to assistance provided; or existing or business desired a loan from the computer programs permitted the extraction Small Business Administration (or special and summary only of data on assistance State loan program). provided and not on damages incurred. (2) Disagreement over amount of losses, (7) Final costs still undetermined. Differences existed, in some cases, The final costs of some flood repairs between a town, State agency, individual, principally to destroyed bridges or business and a verifying State or had still not been determined as of Federal agency regarding the amount December 1983. of damages caused by the floods. (8) Administrative costs In general, (3) Unreported losses. Much of the no accounting was available from State flood damage to residences and busi- agencies and municipal governments concern- ncsses was not reported to any State ing the administrative costs of dealing or Federal agency responsible for gath- with flood recovery over a period of ering information on flood damages. many months. (4) Confidential information. Inf or- (9) Large geographic area affected. mation on residential and business losses The widespread impact of the floods -- gathered by State and Federal agencies affecting more than 100 Connecticut was often kept confidential except for towns and hundreds of small drainage summaries of total assistance provided basins -- made the collection of updated throughout the State. information a time consuming and expensive task. (5) Program objectives., Inf ormation on both public and private damages was gathered and reported by State and Federal agencies for purposes of fulfilling individual program objectives of providing financial assistance to flood victims and for meeting auditing requirements. 72 CHAPTER 4 DISASTER ASSISTANCE AND RECOVERY Connecticut Begins Struggle U S. Aid Sought State Gets To Recuperate From Floods For Connecticut Disaster Aid BYRICHARDL MADDEN In Rwds"Wake Designation HARTFORD, June SpwwtoTbomwywkTtwm Low-Cost L4ans Would 7 - Connecticut and Old Lyme. Thirteen bl=1.75 By MICHELE JACKLIN began bailing out today as state and have to be replaced and 70 Courant Stuff Writer local officia, s struggled to put a price state highways were damaged. An un. Pay to Remir Damap tag on whatUy, said was "astronomi. known number of bridges and roads President Reagan declared cal" damage left from a weekend of tor. maintained by the towns were also de- Connecticut a major disaster area rential rain. stroyedor damaged. By ILICHARD L MADDEN Monday, clearing the way for 411t's an economic tragedy, without a At least 10 washouts on the Northeast Spiscut oTb*N..Ywk doubt," Gov. William A. O'Neill said of rail corridor forced Amtrak to use thousands of property owners r HARTFORD, June 8 - As Connect- who sustained heavy losses in this the slow-moving storm that dumped 7 to buses to transport passengers between 'sZd eme to 11 inches of rain and left at least 12 per- New London and Bridgeport and the 'cul Y, i% month's flooding to begin apply- Base rate and F ciais soris dead or missing across the state Conrail branch between Waterbury and intensified their efforts to get Federal ing for millions of dollars in fed- : ince FridaY night. The financial dam Bridgeport was out Of Sefte, There aid to help repair the SU UMMOAAwd eral aid. ge alone will be "ts the multi-multi. was no Immediate estimate of when damage caused by the weekend deluge. Gov. William A. O'Neill and millionsof dollars," the Governor said. service would be restored. Gov. William A. O'Neill. declaring members of the state's congres- Only occasional sbowers fell today that "the basic emergency situation has and the flooded rivers and streams 2N Still in Centers sional delegation were informed anded," said he would meet with his I Reagan's action about 6 p.m. were starting to recede. But all along Five sewage-treAtment nlantlit [a C4birAt Thursday to put t0A:b:rt1r 0 Connec cut Legislators @11 damnap. essumate. t The disaster designation will en- vote 4 northern counties 0,27 Million for Flood Repairs ,PJ By MArnlEW L WALD denied U.S. flood aid SpUtonsabiwYork'7110111111 HARTFORD, June 30 - The General both boom unanimously. The biggest HARTFORD - Federal officials have during the recent special session of the Assembly approved a $37 million pro- part. $20 million. will pay the stateaw Ie edLonne ' urs request that the =.',',will be sufficient to meet ell town share of cam to repair roads, ct. , = te' t ern counties be made ::%dfvnid= , bri and other public property dam, eligible for federal aid to help repair that suffered damages in the floods by the floods. Under a declaration damage to public property caused by last President Reagan declared portions of June 5 and 6. which in many areas of the emergency signed by President Rea- Connecticut's lour southern counties state were the worst in a century. gan, the Federal Government wW pick month's flooding, Gov. William A. O'Neill disaster areas on June 14 after state offi- Meeting In special session to approve announced Tuesday. cials reptIrted that the severe June flood- up the costs in four coun- "If there is no appeal from this ruling, the package, which had bipartisan sup. ties!'=eoldf, New Haven, Middle. sta ing had caused more than $277 million in port, both the House and Senate ap. sex and New London - leaving the rest te and local governments will now damage to the state. proved a tax-abatement plan that will to municipal and state governments. have to assume the responsibility of re- allow towns to cut by one-third the pmp. An application is now storing public property damaged in the Connecticut officials requested on ty-W bills of those who suffered flood the state's other four :== June sloirm," ONeill said. June 22 that eligibility for federal aid for The state will reimburse the in the disaster arm. The governor said he is disappointed flood damage to public property be ex- RE 90 percent of the revenue lost, with the federal decision but added that tended to the northern counties of Hart- although no price tag was put on the lAmr-hiterest Lem 1w Rebunilling the 937 million flood aid program passed ford, Litchfield, Tolland and Windham. tax-abatement measure toda-- -4114- A similar law was IM_.do,-w=,r= Disaster Relief Trickles to Flood Victims Gov. William A. O'Neill, 14ARTFORD JAP) - A federal Connecticut on June c and 6. but it checks will have been roadlisd out hy together -plcwy,,, W ja_ Doyle and other fedens! officials, posed the package, said he ageocy w ;in to -fight a fire" is the only scrurce atud for some dneendofthiswork, Silk. FEMA's deputy dimater mid somse delays sure unavoidable. the legislation tomorrow MOr urideii dz .8,clief program, my, Notifies. But he said his agency was scaporme director for Connecticut. Unlike other relief efforts. the The General Assembly acth the %rate's lack of coordination and "This Program (IFG) moves slow working m hard as possible. -If I Maher mid his agency must men program is one off int resort. they 4nual speed, delayed occasio, latilum 1, document ,at- has at,, an, disamor," Doyle I -.-, ,arm, deficiencies, rd my carcruil, because any psimcss. said. b In. from reaching Monday- so.' Malmr said. ounde, to ineligible flood victim This s @@ IFG program aids lawmakers waited for their v'iu'2y',H ofntehye neediest victim "We me not in an advefsM In his asenros to the Departnerld of would have to be paid back to the oniv I= munts who do nol to c ve floods, situation with the at.,,, which is I- Doyle aid FEMA by the ,am. --ir that -1-1 all he relief they need from mena7tiMtbe wording fjum,,.-u responsibility "Th, serious new, and necessary working hard. But we leaned a little the state is failing to sm priorities on happened. we would be crilicited other agencies. such as the SBA and forth rapidly, and rapid act expense, of d imues victim is not heavy on them to light a rim under which claims are the neediest. - oterm heaWy th- we am Red! Crotts. being p,.,idcd .. - y bati.." them ... We weren't completely The memo says that " percent of now," Molmr mid. And Doyle conceded the welfare, appreciated by the people c Arthur I. Dold.. derp-uty regional happy with what was happening." all claim were returned to welfstre Maher mid that i,goD or the department's job is ",ery. ery dn Th. criticism was, mimed by department field offims because pending claim in,ol,c incomplete tough" because it must await iout,' mid Representative wor of the Federal Ernergency Edward W. Matter. director of th. the claim had been sent to state fumnsiall inforroation from flood informamon from the SBA and =, D=- of NMI 14-8- Agency '"be Sto' [email protected] t'o?' state Detartnerst of I.c.sne neview, panels without adequate victim deb saidAug.5inamenvoont states other 411im before deciding on I G I Maintenance - the welfare docurmsmatiern. He mid other delays were caoel hcthcr 1. nusil heeks. clariflCation abo, Indi!idual and Fami y ran department - which is -possible The memo also says the welfare by wone families which went on But 4 Separate Program designed program. for doctrusenting the claim and deparimm has failed to keep track vacation. 417 cases require ho help amilita with minor home The $37= The 11. PrOtriuss is one or running the IFG program. of relief Provided by the federal additional how visits by late repair% Us been more sucm sful, -ral available 10 victims of the Currently, Z,671 claims me Small Busi- s Administration. casework- and .356 are awaiting sending as --I of 1118'.000 1. 696 he " for with floods whh devrared W. of pending. Maher said. He aid R4 "Sornehody is not putting the file action by review panels. h0ttseh,cts. Doyi,mid. 73 Most remaining work involved repair or replacement of bridges and culverts. THE RECOVERY PROCESS Flood recovery was aided by financial and technical assistance from Federal Clean-up, repair and rebuilding and State governments and from private of property damaged by the June floods organizations. The amount of financial began as soon as water receded and people aid available from the Federal government were able to start work. Most minor was greatly increased when Connecticut repairs to public and private property was declared a major disaster area. were completed within a few days or The following sections describe the weeks of the flood. Major repairs, types of assistance that were available such as destroyed bridges or severely and how they were used to help State damaged or destroyed homes and businesses agencies, towns, businesses, farmers, required months to repair or rebuild. and residents recover from the 1982 Eighteen months after the June floods, f loods. the recovery was still not complete. 4$7 Z"4 Ili"@ ,/-77, Ar P, W-7-1 4"- [email protected]' A washed out section of Colony Road in East Lyme being rebuilt (Photo by John Ligos, The Day) 74 FEDERAL DISASTER DECLARAMN greater flood losses were required to pay the entite cost of recovery. (16,17) After touring severely affected areas of the State by helicopter and OCP gathered additional information automobile on Sunday and Monday, Governor comparing damages to selected towns O'Neill announced his intention to seek in all eight counties. On June 22 the Federal assistance for flood recovery. Governor sent a letter, along with support- On Thursday, June 10, the Governor submit- ing information, to the FEMA Regional ted a formal request to the President Director in Boston requesting that the (see Appendix C), asking that all of four northern counties also be declared Connecticut be declared a major disaster a major disaster area and made eligible area. The regional office of the Federal for Public Assistance (16,65). FEMA Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in responded on July 8, 1982 and denied Boston reviewed the request and sent the request. FEMA stated that: representatives to Connecticut to verify the extent of the flood damages. the severity and magnitude of the remaining damages does Based on FEMA's recommendation, not appear to be of major the President declared a major disaster disaster proportion. These for Connecticut on Monday, June 14 (FEMA damages consist mainly of 661-D R- CT). However, the declaration small projects, scattered was limited. The entire State was declared over a wide area, which produce a major disaster area for purposes of no significant problems to Individual Assistance, making available traffic, publi*c health or various Federal grant and loan programs safety. The existing situation to individuals and businesses throughout is considered to be within the State. Only the four southern counties the capabilities of the State (Fairfield, New London, Middlesex, New and local governments and, Haven) were declared a major disaster therefore, your request cannot for Public Assistance, making municipal- be approved." (66) ities, non-profit organizations and State agencies with damages in these Centers for Disaster Assistance. FEMA counties eligible for Federal reimbursement is the Federal agency that coordinates of 75 percent of eligible flood losses. most of the public and much of the private assistance provided by Federal agencies. Initial damage estimates obtained Following the major disaster declaration by OCP from the towns indicated that on June 14, the Disaster Assistance many towns in the four northern counties Division of the FEMA Region I office (Windham, Tolland, Hartford, Litchfield) in, Boston began preparations to work had sustained damages greater than some with the State of Connecticut. Several towns in the four southern counties -- representatives from the Corps of Engi- particularly Fairfield County. The neers, Environmental Protection Agency Governor, OCP, and OPM felt that it and other Federal agencies were assigned would not be equitable for towns in to work with FEMA and State agencies the southern counties with relatively on the disaster. minor damages to receive federal reim- bursement for 75 percent of their losses FEMA personnel worked with staff while towns in northern counties with members from OCP and OPM to identify 75 appropriate locations for establishing Department of Housing (DOH), Department disaster offices. Middletown was selected of Income Maintenance (DIM), Department as the site for the Disaster Field Office of Labor (DOL), Department of Insurance (DFO) because of its central location (DOI), Department of Aging (DOA), Depart- and nearness to State offices. The ment of Mental Health (DMH), Department DFO opened on June 16 and remained in of Consumer Protection (DCP), Department operation until September. The DFO of Children and Youth Services QCYS), served as headquarters for Federal and and Department of Environmental Protection State agencies working with municipalities (D E P). In addition, representatives from the four southern counties to deter- from the Connecticut Bar Association mine flood damages to public facilities. provided free legal assistance and Red Cross representatives were present at On Friday, June 18, Disaster Assis- each center. OPM staff at each center tance Centers (DAQ opened to assist served as intake and exit interviewers individuals, homeowners, and businessmen and assisted DAC managers. who suffered flood losses. DAC's were established at six locations in the In addition to the six DAC's serving southern part of the State: Essex, the four southern counties, a traveling Hamden, Milford, Naugatuck, New London, team of disaster assistance workers and Norwich (Figure 4.1). Each center served the needs of victims in the four was open daily from 10 am until 8 pm, northern counties. The traveling teams except Sunday when they were open from of Federal and State representatives I to 8 pm. Each of the six centers established mobile DAC's in four loca- remained open for seven days, until tions: Killingly, Storrs, West Hartford, June 24. and Torrington (Figure 4.1). From June 21 through June 28, the teams spent Flood victims were advised to two days each at the four temporary visit the center nearest them to determine DAC's helping flood victims determine if they would be available for one or if they were eligible for disaster assis- more types of flood aid provided by tance and helping those eligible complete numerous Federal and State agencies. applications for individual assistance Victims were also encouraged to bring programs. Each center was open from with them any evidence of their flood 10 am until 8 pm. losses, such as photographs and an inven- tory of losses. Farmers were advised A toll free hot-line for disaster to visit their county ASCS and SCS offices information was also provided from June for information about financial assistance 17 through July 30. This line was used for agricultural losses. to provide flood victims with information about the types of disaster assistance FEMA determined which Federal that might be available to them and agencies and OPM which State agencies to inform them of the nearest DAC or would have representatives at the DACs appropriate State or Federal agency to assist individuals and businesses. office they should visit to fill out Federal representatives included FEMA, an application for assistance. the Small Business Administration (SBA), Internal Revenue Service, Social Security After the six DAC's closed on Administration, and the Veterans Admini- June 24, three Disaster Service Centers stration. State agencies included OPM, were opened in Essex, Hamden, and West 76 FIGURE 4. 1: LOCATION OF CENTERS PRDVIDING ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VIECT114S Plant Jr. High School Mansfield Municipal Bldg. Farmington Ave, Witing Lane ibute 195 Danielson Armory West Hartford Storrs 54 West St. 6/23 6/24 Killingly 6/25 - 6/26 6/21 - 6/22 7/12 - 7/17 Torrington Armory High Street 153 South Main St. ...... lbrrington 6/27 - 6/28 X 55 High Street Middletown X X National Guard Armory 700 Rubber Ave. ...... [email protected] 14 6/18 - 6/24 Margaret Keefe School Town Multi Service Center Pine Street Hamden 6/18 - 6/24 6/28 -7117 Platt Regional Vocational Technical School Xf. 600 Orange Ave. Milford 6/18 6/24 Mohegan Conaunity College Mahan Drive Essex Elemeiltary School GYM Norwich Main Street Anrory Main St. 6/18 - 6/24 CenteEbrook, Essex 505 Main St. 6118 - 6/24 West Haven 6/28 - 7/17 6/28 - 7/17 National Guard Armory 249 Bayonet St. New London 6118 - 6/24 DIShSTER FIELD OFFICE DIShSTER ASSISMWE CENrER 0 Source: Cr Office of Civil Preparedness MOBILE DISNSI'ER ASSISMNCE MVER 0 DISASIER sEWICE CMaER X Haven from June 28 through July 17. Another Service Center was opened in TABLE 4.1: REGISTRATIONS FOR West Hartford from July 12 - 17 (Figure PERSONAL AND BUSINESS ASSISTANCE 4.1). These Service Centers were staffed by a smaller group of State and Federal AT DISASTRA ASSISTANCE CENTERS representatives providing information primarily about SBA home and business TYPE OF ASSISTANCE OF loans, housing assistance, and the Indivi- REGISTRANTS dual and Family Grant Program (IFG). Each center was open from 9 am to 5 Temporary Housing 1,984 pm Monday through Saturday and 11 am to 7 pm on Wednesday. SBA Interviews 3,108 Home/Personal 2,445 As a further effort to see that Business 327 needy flood victims availed themselves FmHA Interviews 4 of the individual assistance programs Applications Filed 3 FEMA established teams of outreach workers ASCS Interviews 2 based at the Disaster Service Centers Applications Filed - in Essex, Hamden and West Haven. These DUA Claims Filed 7 teams telephoned and visited community Job Placement Interviews - leaders and individuals in areas affected by flooding throughout the State in Legal Services Referrals 60 order to identify flood victims still Debris Removal Interviews - needing assistance. They helped house- VA Interviews 2 bound flood victims file applications SSA Interviews 162 for assistance and referred individuals to the appropriate government agency Individual/Family Grant or private organization. Applications 2,097 When the Disaster Assistance Centers Food Stamp Applications 127 closed on June 28, a total of 3,527 Welfare 14 individuals had registered at the centers. Red Cross 936 A breakdown of the types of assistance Mennonites sought 'by these applicants is provided Salvation Army - in Table 4.1. During the time that the Disaster Service Centers were open, Mental Health 89 another 729 persons registered for possible Dept. of Economic assistance, bringing the total registrants Development 311 to more than 4,200. Dept. on Aging 160 After the Disaster Service Centers Dept. of Consumer closed on July 17, SBA continued to Protection' 654 provide representatives at the Disaster Internal Revenue Service 3,077 Field Office in Middletown until August ---------------------------------- 13 -- the application deadline for physical TOTAL REGISTRATIONS 3,527 disaster loans. During the final week before the deadline, SBA loan officers Source: CTOfficeof Civil Preparedness made a last visit to ten locations (West files 79 Hartford, Torrington, Killingly, Storrs, loans to flood damaged businesses. Norwich, MllforJ, Naugatuck, New London, Essex and Hamden) to receive completed 0 Approve $4 million in bonding for applications, answer questions and provide the Department of Environmental Protec- individualized assistance. (16,17,18,67) tion for emergency repairs to existing State-owned dams damaged by the floods August 13 was also the deadline which needed repairs to relieve danger for the housing assistance programs to people living below them, and for and Individual and Family Grant Program. ongoing repairs to State-owned dams The Department of Housing provided housing identified by the Corps of Engineers assistance jcpjc6cnt&tjvc6 at tht Depart- as needing work. ment of Housing in Hartford as well as at the DACs. The Department of Income 0 Approve a tax abatement measure Maintenance provided representatives allowing towns to waive up to one-third at regional offices and the central of an owner's property taxes if flood office in Hartford as well as the DACs damage to the property totaled more (29,68). than 10 percent of its assessed value, ind permit the State to reimburse each community for 90% of the tax income lost through abatements. (70) EMERGENCY STATE LEGISLATION On June 30 the Legislature passed Public Act No. 82-1. On Friday, June the flood relief package proposed by 18, Governor O'Neill called for the the Governor. An amendment was added Connecticut General -Assembly to meet requiring DEP to use a portion of the in a Special Session, beginning junc bond money allocated for dam repairs 28 (69). The Governor prepared a f ive- to conduct a study of dams in the State. point program of flood assistance that The Governor signed the legislation he asked the Legislature to enact: July 1. The State Bond Commission approved $34 million in bonds for special flood 0 Approve $20 million in bonding to assistance on July 23. (18,67,71) help repair and replace State and munic- ipal public facilities. Funds would Special Act 93-17. In the June 1983 be used to provide the 25% matching session, the Legislature. amended PA needed to obtain 75% federal funding 82-1 (Appendix F). The main changes for towns in the northern counties, were: removal of bond authorizations and an equivlent share for towns in for low-intercst loans for housing and the southern counties businesses, because these programs had been little used; a reduction in the 0 Approve $5 million in bonds for bond authorization for public assistance the Department of Housing to make low from $20 million to $5 million to reflect interest loans for reconstruction or the funds actually needed; and removal rehabilitation of flood damaged homes. of a restriction limiting funds to State and town-owned property, thereby permitting o Approve an $8 million bond program, reimbursement of special districts and including $5 million in new authori- non-profit organizations. (71a) zations, for the Department of Economic Development to provide low interest 79 (60 days from the time of the disaster declaration) to apply for assistance ASSISTANCE TO INDIVEDUALS under this program. Eligibility for temporary housing As a result of the major disaster assistance was available to flood victims declaration, several types of Federal who required temporary housing for any disaster assistance were made aV&il&blc of the following reasons: to individuals affected by flooding in all eight counties in Connecticut. - Physical damage to the dwelling that Under the provisions of PA 82-1, special prevented the family from moving back State programs were also developed and into a safe, secure, and sanitary unit. made available, and individuals were informed of regular programs of State - Essential utilities were unavailable and Fedefal assistance for which they to the awelling for an extended period might be eligible. The following sections of time. describe the various programs which were available to flood victims. The - The dwelling was inaccessible or had amount of financial assistance provided to be evacuated because it was surrounded is summarized, if available. by flood waters, the only access road or bridge was washed out, or there was imminent danger to the dwelling. TEMPORARY HOUSING PROGRAM - The applicant was displaced by his The Temporary Housing Program landlord for reasons directly related was made available through FEMA with to the disaster. 100 percent Federal funding from the President's Disaster Relief Fund. After - Other valid reasons existed, such a disaster declaration, the Governor as special health or other unique problems has the option of having the Temporary that prohibited an individual from living Housing Program be administered by FEMA in a dwelling that under normal circum- or the State. For the June 1982 floods, stances would be considered habitable. the Connecticut Department of Housing (DOH) administered the program. DOH verified each applicant's need for temporary housing. The period The Temporary Housing Program of eligibility for temporary housing provided alternate housing for an indivi- was determined based on individual needs. dual or family while necessary repairs Permanent housing was sought as soon were made to their primary residence. as possible. Alternate housing included hotels, motels, rentals, mobile homes, or travel trailers. The Temporary Housing Program Eligible applicants were requested to was divided into two phases. Phase find their own alternate living quarters I covered the time from the disaster where possible. Temporary housing assis- declaration until all applicants were tance ended once permanent housing was provided with suitable temporary housing. obtained or the damaged property was Phase I ended about August 20. Phase restored to a habitable condition. II covered the time required to relocate Flood victims had until August 13, 1982 all applicants in permanent housing. 80 The program was originally scheduled were granted funds for Limited Home to be concluded by September 1, 1983, Repairs (see following section) and but because four families required tem- the remainder were provided with some porary housing after that date, the form of temporary housing. Table 4.2 pfogfam was extended until December provides a breakdown of the numbet and 1, 1983. (29,72) types of temporary housing_ provided. By September 1983, FEMA had advanced A total of 2,584 applications $625,000 (out of $800,000 budgetcd) were received for temporary housing. toDOHfor the Temporary Housing Program. Of these, 1,347 were determined to be (73) ineligible, 409 were withdrawn, 746 TABLE 4.2: ASSISTANCE PROVIDED THROUGH TEMPORARY HOUSING PROGRAM TOTAL COMPLETED REMAINING ASSISTED FAMILIES ASSISTED Transient Accomodations Only 26 26 Government-Owned/Assisted I I Private Rental 33 29 4 Mobile Home/Travel Trailer Private Site 2 2 Group/Cluster Site 19 18 1 TOTAL FAMILIES ASSISTED 81 76 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TYPES OF ALTERNATE HOUSING Return to Own Home (Owner) 35 1 Purchase or Build Home (Private) 9 2 Private Rental 22 1 Government Assisted Rental 3 1 Low-Income Housing 3 Other 4 TOTAL 76 5 Source: "Disaster Temporary Housing Program, Phase II Scoreboard," CT Department of Housing, 9/30/83 81 LIMITED HOME REPAIRS . IThe LHR program could be used for the following purposes: The Limited Home Repair (LHR) program was an additional temporary - Elimination of health and safety housing resource. Persons determined hazards; to be eligible for temporary housing - Cleaning and fumigating; assistance that owned and occupied the - Repairs to electrical and/or gas systems damaged house could elect to receive that provide service to the kitchen, LHR funding for repair of the damaged bathroom, or occupied bedroom(s); house instead of using temporary housing. - Repairs to the plumbing system that [email protected] kOUPIHOUISING]@' PRKRY1.G 1, It 3: et aln'@ tw ovien..., ami Ics, 17: 01 hi, Its t "Ou ing owAs weirt. VC, "In 0, lit! @11 t in Ind:. suri Ad t Ina 46ii U The:: feside ic u 'e& t1tr, elt, h.0:,U:s t5 J:@: omes p [email protected] e s, r q: ..oo wa cis @wl, @[email protected] e t [email protected] e w, e r, t: A p 3 3 -u I:Cj q: n.a e- ilk in ivi u al Ov,I e fin W, f Id I d using [email protected] i 0 'commUnliVes:@:': h 11, A MOM t h 6 th: 0`0 e e elio 9 ht A's a, it abl I or on g: :.p. w IV te t ary-,si c:a oou sin&. at r gVM e tits at men I ocil i:@ t f' H eci 4o eve up:,,:, ou Ing *me 5 werc: a [email protected] to e are! U, t" -TtMalt using M6 lie:[email protected]:;@ 6' t kid at v C V& resi ej 1. h 24l md I t gtoqwj, t [email protected]:t b* e piwl sum mlef us t'20 of (0, t [email protected] red l'.. a. ra ey it ''a om 9 a s t a's t: 0 t r h: e-:@ d l6 d- I U;4 J., phsvc ccupic [email protected] it) I ts':' ef e . tho s e :t eni iin, ic i IMS w as Ne kp t r b- l he': le:o icem, xl -P iiifi' -h 11 hd eii ousim&: t rigina [email protected] a N,: 10 n5l, X: n:g,, 4cza :e 1:@:Iai *!AdL s or:. otki in:: 107t b' i [email protected]:iiiiiiiii: Ampqe f ri*[email protected] 4xji b t d' Witib [email protected] lot @wac:[email protected] e tt A [email protected] [email protected] it bild-in i! xe lanell heiz:owntt:[email protected],c ving:@@ low t, v: tria: si c :a: in',a Iet t h i til itl an mof t f bl' h 11,66 :4 22 t t eqwnerl:.:@ Case h. : .::' - V C A i propel F T an o: teownp, [email protected] $Sex Ihe: va ldt,:@ l&Wbilr. CA wn in uth,10t4diriep 4i It. Thi:@ @.T6 t rd hi r' sf Id h Q as S alte:4urpo AS [email protected]:: ul it I e: l i NOOWz:16i: t Ite S I-C.--- 0t, t with th- ta. h; T DON 2 ist e.C`4 to. @@pay,, It e:::, @W% t t: *S* D 67 i st.8 A.Vi f 64:@ j A on:: ol all, Utlill'iti, [email protected] t e u ED: t, t ii V id: 4A::i:@ 4,:A& bb d 20: mo, I C::!:@h:[email protected]@@[email protected]:..,[email protected]@@]@@:0 @mo it I e:: con gp It ing d 82 provides service to the kitchen and The Department of Income Mainte- a bathroom; nance verified the needs of each applicant Repairs to or replacement of watcr and dettimincd if those needs were or heater; could be met through insurance, an SBA Repairs to exterior door(s), a bathroom loan or other sources. IFG applicants door, and windows; had to first apply for an SBA loan unless Minor repairs to stove and refrig- they certified that they: erator; Temporary repairs to roof; - suffered only personal property damage; Temporary repairs to interior floors; or Pump and repair of septic system; - were unemployed; or Repairs to or replacement of water - derived more than 50 percent of their well pump; and income from Social Security Assistance Minor repairs to and cleaning of heating or welfare payments. unit if permanent repair could not be accomplished before the season Such applicants were automatically requiring heat. (72) ineligible for SBA loans. If an SBA loan was approved that would meet the A total of 746 persons participated applicant's needs, then no IFG grant in the LHIZ (74). The maximum grant was made. Applicants living in a desig- to any one LHR applicant was $2,000, nated floodplain were required to purchase and a total of $210,857 was expended adequate flood insurance as a condition through this program. Like the Temporary of the grant. (68,76) Housing Program, the LHR program was 100 percent Federally funded. (29,68,75) The IFG program was intended to provide financial assistance only if flood victims could not meet their needs through other forms of assistance. INDIVI]DUAL AND FAMMY GRANT PROGRAM However, DIM reported that many people thought they would be immediately eligible The Individual and Family Grant for a $5,000 grant. This misinformation program (IFG) was available to individuals resulted in some confusion and disap- and families who sustained necessary pointment by applicants. Despite press expenses or serious needs for which releases by both FEMA and the State, other governmental, private agency or people continued to have misconceptions insurance assistance was either unavailable about the IFG and other individual assis- or inadequate. The maximum grant under tance programs. (68) the IFG program to an individual or family was $5,000 (combined maximum The official deadline for applying of $5,000 for IFG and LHR). Applicants for the IFG program was August 13-- were not subject to an income limitation. 60 days after the disaster declaration. The IFG program was funded 75 percent DIM applied for and received a seven by the President's Disaster Relief Fund week extension to this period. Most and 25 percent by State funds. The of the applications received during program was administered by the Department the extension period were from individuals of Income Maintenance '(DIM). who had filed an application with SBA at the Disaster Assistance Center, but had not simultaneously filed an IFG 83 application. (68) CONNECTICUT HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM DIM received a total of 3,059 The special flood relief legisla- applications for the IFG program. Of tion passed by the Connecticut General these, 1,329 were approved at a total Assembly included $5 million in bonds cost of $3,053,696.74, shared 75/25 to be used by the Connecticut Department by the Federal and State governments. of Housing for low-interest housing In addition, DIM estimated total State loans, The loan program was established administrative costs of $238,392.70. to supplement the SBA loan program. Table 4.3 provides a detailed breakdown Applicants had to first apply to SBA of the IFG program. (68,75) for a loan. If denied an SBA loan, they could apply to the Stqte program. SBA informed all applicants of the possi- bility of a loan from the State program. SBA PHYSICAL DISASTER LOANS The legislation required that The Small Business Administration interest rates on State loans not exceed (SBA) issued its own disaster declaration one percent above the rate of interest for physical damage (# 204806). The on the last State bond issue before SBA declaration covered the entire State, the loan was awarded. Regulations devel- and provided direct loans to individuals oped by DOH provided for a flexible for the refinancing, repair, rehabilitation loan rate below 7 5/8 percent, for up or replacement of property damaged as to 30 years, including the possibility a result of the floods. Homeowners of an interest free loan. Only 15 appli- could apply for SBA loans up to $50,000 cations were received for the State for real estate and $10,000 for personal loan program. No loans were granted. property, or a combined total of $55,000. DOH reported that most of the applicants had very poor credit ratings and could The SBA interest rate was tied not repay even an interest free loan. to the prevailing prime rate, and following Two loan applications were pending when the June 1982 floods loans were offered the $5 million was reallocated by the at 15 5/8 percent for three years to Legislature in June 1983. (78) individuals able to obtain credit through comme rcial sources ("credit elsewhere" t e s t ) .Individuals without "credit elsewhere" were offered loans at 7 7/8 DISASTER UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE percent for up to 30 years. Applicants had to satisfy SBA that they could pay Disaster Unemployment Assistance back the loan, and some applications was available to persons out of work were denied because of insufficient as a result of the floods. The Department ability to repay. SBA authorized 901 of Labor (DOL) administered the program home loans for a total loan amount of in conjunction with the regular unem- $6,219,430. (77) ployment assistance program. Of 9 70 applications for Disaster Unemployment Assistance, 960 were determined eligible. Of these, 496 actually received some Disaster Unemployment Assistance. 84 TABLE 4.3: STATISTICAL REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY GRANT PROGRAM COST OF INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY GRANT PROGRAM Original estimated cost of grants (Federal and State) $1,000,000 Actual cost of grants (Federal and State) 3,053,697 State estimate of total administrative expens.es 238,393 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICATIONS Total 3,059 Approved 1,329 Disapproved 1,047 Withdrawn 683 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPEALS RECEIVED Total 333 Granted in Full 26 Granted in Part 94 Denied 213 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GRANTS Number of grants 1329 Total grant payments $2,847,3541 Average Grant $ 2,142 Maximum Grants 169 @ $5,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GRANT CATEGORIES Housing - Repair, replace, rebuild 826 $1,715,984 - All others 81 328,516 Personal property - Household items, furnishings, appliances 586 441,809 - All others 226 65,102 Transportation 50 19,102 Medical/Dental 27 12,225 Funeral expenses 6 11,570 Flood insurance premiums 637 31,812 Minimization measures 86 170,042 Cost of estimates 72 5,326 Other 60 45,160 1 Prior to cancellations of outstanding checks and refunds. Source: "Final Statistical Report," State of CT, Individual and Family Grant Program, 8/23/83 85 The Department of Labor reported of Unemployed Parents, and the State that 3,028 individual Disaster Unemployment Supplement Program which provides supple- Assistance claims were filed (one claim mental payments to diiability or retirement filed per person f or each week of unemploy- Social Security pensions. The Connecticut ment), and 2,250 claims were paid at Department on Aging interviewed 168 8 a total cost of $151,864 DOL also persons over 60 years of age and referred estimated that at least an additional many of these to existing services for $272,000 were paid in regular unemployment the elderly. (68,81) benefits to persons out of work due to the floods. (79) ASSISTANCE FROM PRIVATE ORGANIZATIOM CRISIS COUNSELING About 55 Red Cross staff workers from Connecticut and several other states The Connecticut Department of worked with about 550 volunteers to Mental Health (DMH) assisted flood victims provide emergency assistance in the through local community clinics, at first few days after the flood. The the Disaster Assistance Centers, and Red Cross supplied more than 3,000 meals, through a special outreach program. operated 25 shelters in 21 towns that In the areas hardest hit by flooding, housed 648 people, and handed out 2,850 community clinics extended their normal clean-up kits containing mops, brooms hours on the days when flooding occurred and disinfectant. The Red Cross also to provide any needed assistance to operated an Unmet Needs program that flood victims. DMH also provided staff assisted flood victims whose needs could at the DAC's to interview persons suffering not be met through any State or Federal from stress related to the flooding program, either disaster programs or and to refer them to appropriate sources regular programs. Approximately $475,000 for additional counseling if needed. (80) was provided to flood victims through (See Chapter 5 for information on addi- this program. (30,31) tional crisis counseling several months after the flood.) Throughout the areas hardest hit by flooding, community and church groups raised funds to assist needy flood vic- tims. In Clinton, a Flood Relief Committee NON-DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS raised more than $36,000 to aid 17 Clinton flood victims. The Committee received In addition to the special disaster donations from civic groups, individuals, programs, other assistance was available and local businesses. In Essex, the to flood victims through regular State Essex Foundation received donations and Federal programs. The Department of at least $90,000 from all over the of Income Maintenance reported that State for distribution to Essex's flood 83 persons received assistance through victims. Five members of the Mennonite the Food Stamp program. Thirteen others church in Pennsylvania traveled to Essex received assistance from a variety of and spent about a week assisting families ongoing programs such as Medicare and and businesses clean up [email protected] flood Medicade, Aid to Families of Dependent damaged buildings. (18) Children, Aid to Dependent Children 86 physical damage) and did not have credit elsewhere. SEA made 9 EIDL loans totaling ASSISrANCE TO BWDUMM AND AGRICULIURE $158,000. (77) Commercial, industrial and agri- cultural concerns that suffered flood BUSINESS EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM damages had limited sources of assistance available to them. There were no grant The Connecticut flood relief legisla- programs; insurance and loans were the tion created a loan program for businesses two forms of financial aid available. as well as individuals. The legislation provided $8 million that could be used for loans to businesses and agricultural SEA LOANS concerns. The loans could be used for repair, reclamation, or replacement Physical Disaster Loans. SEA provided of: machinery; equipment; real property Physical Disaster Loans directly to and improvements thereon; inventory; businesses as well as individuals. and crops.. These loans could be used to replace or repair damaged real estate, inventory The maximum loan was $500,000 or other business property. Businesses for a term of ten years. The interest were required to document their flood rate could be no more than 1 percent damages and have the damages verified above the rate of interest on the last by an SEA representative. They also State bond issue prior to the date of had to demonstrate an ability to repay the loan closing. Businesses had one the loan. Businesses that could obtain year from the date of the emergency credit through commercial sources ("credit declaration by the Governor (June 7, elsewhere" test) were offered SBA loans 1982) to apply for loans, and had to at 16 percent for three years. Those demonstrate insufficient assistance unable to obtain credit elsewhere were from Federal programs. The Connecticut offered SEA loans at 8 percent for up Development Authority (CDA), part of to 30 years. The SEA loans were for the Department of Economic Development, 85 percent of verified losses up to operated the loan program. a maximum loan amount of $500,000. All businesses that applied for A total of 253 SEA Physical Disaster an SEA loan were eligible to apply for Loans to businesses were authorized the State loan program. Those that at a total amount of $10,255,900. Several were denied an SEA loan could apply loans for the maximum $500,000 were to the State for the full amount of made. (77) their verified losses. Those that received an SBA loan could apply to the State Economic Injury Disaster Loans. SEA for the remaining 15 percent of their also made available Economic Injury verified losses. Even though each business Disaster Loans (EIDL) under a separate that applied for an SEA loan was notified disaster declaration V 597800). These by SEA that additional assistance might loans were available to businesses who be available from the State through suffered economic injury as a direct this loan program, CDA received only result of the disaster (with or without 29 applications. 97 CDA used the applicant's SBA loan also made follow-up visits to many flood application and the SBA loss verifi- damaged businesses to determine if they cation for most of its information, were recovering from the flood, to make and applied criteria similiar to those them aware of the SBA and State loan used by SBA in determining loan eligi- programs, and to see if DED could provide bility. Most of the 29 applications any form of assistance. (28) (See were rejected by CDA for various reasons: Chapter 5 for information on additional applicant could not prove losses; refusal technical assistance from DED). to guarantee loan by owners; ineligible non-profit organization; refusal to provide sufficient financial information; and refusal to pay closing costs (approved loans required payment of a $150 to $200 fee to cover preparation of legal documents). TABLE 4.4: CONNECTICUT BUSINESS Table 4.4 shows the status of the Business Emergency Relief Program ENERGENCY RELIEF PROGRA14 as of August 1, 1983. Of the eight loans that were approved, about half had received 85 percent loans from SBA, Total and the remainder had been rejected Applications 29 $549,902 by SBA. Most of the approved loans were for very small amounts, and ranged Withdrawn/ from $1,300 to $175,000. Interest rates Ineligible 8 112,300 charged ranged from 10.1 percent to 9.3 percent. CDA stated that it did Declined 9 191,352 not expect all of the approved loans Approved 8 196,000 to proceed to a closing. All loans were to businesses; there were no appli- Pending 4 50,250 cations from agricultural concerns..(82) ------------------------------------ TOTAL 29 $549,902 Closed 3 $ 12,600 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Source: Connecticut Development During the weeks following the Authority, 8/1/83 floods, the Department of Economic Develop- ment (DED) assisted businesses most severely affected by the floods return to operation. Working through its central office in Hartford and several regional offices, DED helped businesses find temporary or permanent new business sites; locate needed warehouse space or storage trucks and trailers; and assist them with setting up operations in new locations. DED representatives FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE guidelines, f armers with qualifying damages payed the initial 20% of costs. Although the floods caused damage ASCS payed up to 80% of the remaining to several crops in Connecticut, only costs; leaving the farmer with a net corn was covered under the Federal Crop payment of 36% of total costs and ASCS Insurance program, and only about ten with 64% of total costs. percent of the total acreage in corn was covered by crop insurance. Loss A total of 118 farmers from all payments under the crop insurance program eight counties applied for the program. were made after the harvest by comparing Seventy-six applications were approved the actual yield to the expected yield. by ASCS County Committees, and a total A total of $56,938, on 63 policies, of $87,198 was paid. Some of the conser- covering 2,761 insured acres was paid vation work was done immediately after for a reduction in corn crops in 1982. the flood, while other work was delayed Paymf.-nts were made to farmers in all until the spring or summer of 1983 because eight counties, distributed as follows. of wet fields and tillage and cropping (83) practices. Fairfield (1) $ 133 The distribution of payments by Hartford (21) 15,452 county was as follows: Litchfield (16) 15,179 Middlesex (9) 6,353 Fairfield (3) $ 1,735 New Haven (2) 3,126 Hartford (10) 8,689 New London (5) 2,415 Litchfield (6) 12,889 Tolland (3) 11,336 Middlesex (6) 5,734 Windham (6) 2,944 New Haven (19) 37,382 ------------------------------ New London (5) 3,782 TOTAL $56,938 Tolland (18) 12,803 Windham (9) 7,966 ------------------------------ TOTAL $87,198 ASCS EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM Approximately $10,000 of the avail- The Federal Agricultural Stabili- able funds were paid by ASCS to the zation and Conservation Service (ASCS) Soil Conservation Service for technical administers an Emergency Conservation assistance for designing and supervising Program that provides partial reimbursement restoration of conservation structures to farmers for damages to cropland. on the farms. (84) Funds may be used for removing debris and restoring fields and seriously eroded areas. Immediately after the flood, ASCS in Hartford authorized $200,000 for the Emergency Conservation Program, available to farmers throughout Connecti- cut. Only about half of the money was cost-shared with farmers. Under program 89 policies in f orce with $835,395,600 in insurance (85). Individuals and ASSIS!rANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND BLEDUNSES businesses who received Federal assistance through the Individual and Family Grant Program and SBA loans were required FLOOD INSURANCE to purchase and maintain flood insurance as a condition of receiving the loans National Flood Insurance Program. Flood or grants. (68,77) insurance through private insurance companies is generally unavailable to The storm system that produced homeowners and is available to businesses the June 1982 flooding did not generate on only a limited basis. Most flood strong winds, so most damage was caused insurance is provided by the National by flooding, flood-caused erosion and Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), adminis- saturated soil conditions that would tered by the Federal Insurance Administra- have been covered by flood insurance. tion (FIA) within FEMA. Some losses did result from wind, leaky roofs, and other non-flood, storm related In June 1982 all Connecticut towns damages, including damages to automobiles except Salem were participating in the which are not covered under NFIP policies. NFIP, making almost all floodplain resi- dents eligible for flood insurance. The Department of Economic Develop- Approximately 13,300 NFIP flood insurance ment estimated that only about five policies were in force in Connecticut percent of businesses affected by the with about $700 million of insurance flood were covered by flood insurance coverage (85). The DEP Natural Resources (28). Some businesses had private insur- Center estimated that about 40,000 struc- ance in addition to or instead of NFIP tures are located in designated floodplains insurance. Some large companies, partic- in Connecticut (86). ularly those with facilities in many different locations, obtain all of their FIA paid 1,518 claims on flood flood insurance through private insurance insurance policies with a total value companies. More typically, the NFIP of $12,015,4589 (87). Since the Department is used to provide insurance up to the of Housing estimated that more than limits available under that program, 15,000 residences suffered at least and private insurance is obtained for minor flood damages and the Department additional coverage. The NFIP serves of Economic Development identified over as a deductible for the private insurance. 400 businesses with flood damages, the small number of claims paid indicates that most of the flooded buildings were Private Insurance. Private insurance not covered by flood insurance. companies provide estimates of insured damages for all catastrophies where Six months after the June floods, insured damages are in excess of $5 all towns were participating in the million. For the June 1982 storm in NFIP10' and the number of flood insurance Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode policies in Connecticut had increased Island, the estimated losses for insured to 14,774 with $779,296,500 in force property (excluding NFIP coverage) was (December 31, 1982). One year later $15 million. No separate breakdown on June 30, 1983, there were 15,433 for Connecticut was available. (89) 90 TAX ABATEMENTS The flood relief legislation enacted after the June floods included a provision VU" 4.5: STM RSEMENT for tax abatements for persons whose property was damaged more than 10 percent OF TAM TO TOWNS THAT GPMM of its value by the floods. Towns were 7AX ABATEMENTS authorized to abate up to one-third of the taxes due, and the State would reimburse the towns for 90% of the taxes 9MCIPALITY AMOUNT lost. Eighteen towns offered some tax abatement to property owners, and the State reimbursed these towns a total Town of Cheshire $ 446.46 of $49,504.55 (90). Table 4.5 lists the amount reimbursed to each town. Town of Chester 115.78 Town of Clinton 613.76 IRS CASUALTY LOSSES City of Derby 49.16 Town of East Haven 355.19 At the time of the June floods, Federal tax codes permitted individuals Town of East Lyme 182.87 to itemize deductions for casualty losses not covered by insurance or other means, Town of Essex 5,013.65 subject to a $100 deductiblell. Businesses Town of Mansfield 479.73 could also claim a casualty loss, but were not subject to a deductible. No City of Meriden 1,890.69 information was available on the amount of flood losses claimed as casualty City of Milford 2,051.09 losses. The Internal Revenue Service representatives at Disaster Assistance City of New Haven 34,714.35 Centers provided information on casualty Town of Old Lyme 352.73 loss deductions to most of the persons who visited the centers, including pro- Town of' Old Saybrook 115.68 ccdures for claiming casualty lo66c6 on an amended 1981 return. (18,91,92) Town of Orange 110.11 Town of Prospect 56.16 Town of Seymour 32.20 Town of Southington 710.78 Town of Wallingford 2,214.16 ----------------------------------- TOTAL $49,504.55 Source: CT Office of Policy and Management 91 of original and supplemental applications, processing requests for changes and ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPALMES extensions of Damage Survey Reports (DSR), checking all paperwork before submission to FEMA, and coordination Financial assistance to repair of final inspections and audits. or tcplacc town facilities damaged by the floods came primarily from three To inform municipal officials sources: Public Assistance Program of the procedures for applying for federal under the President's Disaster Relief assistance, FEMA held a series of appli- Fund, administered by FEMA; Emergency cant's briefings shortly after the disaster Relief Program for municipal roads and declaration on June 14. The first step bridges funded through the Federal-Aid in the process was the filing by towns Highway Program, administered by the of a Notice of Interest in receiving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); federal assistance. The Notice of Interest and State bond funds authorized by the provided information on the types of Connecticut Legislature. assistance needed. Financial assistance for disaster related expenses was divided into nine categories: debris clearance; SOUTHERN COUNTIES protective measures; road systems; water control facilities; public buildings FEMA Public Assistance Program. The and equipment; public utility systems; major disaster declaration for Connect- f acilitics under construction; private icut covered only the four southern non-profit facilities; and other categories counties for Public Assistance. The not included above. The Notice of Interest Public Assistance program is designed Forms helped FEMA determine how many to provide 75 percent of the cost of and what types of Damage Survey Teams replacing or repairing damaged public would be required to verify the damages. facilities to their pre-disaster condi- tion, and certain other flood-related Several Damage Survey Teams, con- expenses. State and local governments sisting of Federal and State representa- must provide the remaining 25 permt. tives, were assigned to prepare Damage Any improvements to the facilities beyond Survey Reports for each damaged public their pre-flood condition generally facility for which municipalities were must be paid for by the State or local seeking assistance. Representatives government. from the Corps of Engineers, Federal Highway Administration, and Environmental The Public Assistance program Protection Agency worked with State was coordinated by FEMA and OPM for representatives from the Department three months from the Disaster Field of Environmental Protection, Department Office in Middletown. After the DFO of Administrative Services and Department closed, FEMA and OPM operated from OPM of Transportation to prepare the Damage offices in Hartford. Several OPM staff Survey Reports. Teams were also accom- were assigned full-time to the disaster panied by a local representative in assistance program to provide the local each town. The DSR's were prepared coordination with FEMA and to manage based on an on-site inspection by the the approval of State funds. This effort team and on information provided to involved assisting with the preparation the team by local officials. 92 After the DSR's were prepared, cantly different from those of the eligible municipalities prepared a Project Applica- damaged f acility. tion form as a formal request for aid. Project Applications combined several Flexible -funding grant. If the esti- DSR's for similar types of damages. mated cost of permanently repairing, The deadline for Project Applications restoring, reconstructing, or replacing was 90 days after the disaster declara- all of its damaged public facilities tion. The total amount of losses deter- exceeded $25,000, an applicant could mined eligible by FEMA and OPM in the elect to receive a grant equal to 90 four southern counties (including special percent of the Federal estimate of the districts and nonprofit organizations) permanent work instead of a categorical as of December 1993 was $10,471,404. gf ant. This pefmitted flexibility in The State had reimbursed the towns the use of the Federal grant, and the $2,617,007 and FEMA had reimbursed applicant could choose not to restore $6,022,400 for a total of $8,639,407. the damaged facilities, but to build FEMA withholds 25 percent of its total new public facilities for other purposes reimbursement until final inspections necessary to meet its needs for govern- and audits have been performed (except mental services and functions. for Small Project Grants under $25,000), and an additional $1,794,847 remained Small 1project grant If the FEMA estimate to be reimbursed by FEMA. An additional of eligible costs for restoration of $248,177 in applications were pending damaged or destroyed facilities and approval by FEMA (already approved by debris removal and emergency protective OPM) in December 1983. (17,40) The work totaled less than $25,000, the amount of funds approved and paid to applicant could receive a small project each town is shown in Appendix D. grant. A portion of the funds could be used to construct facilities needed Four types of grants were available to meet the community's needs for public under the FEMA programs: categorical services and governmental functions, grant, grant-in-lieu, flexible funding if the alternate projects were approved grant, and small project grant. by FEMA prior to the start of design or construction. (93) Categorical grant Reimbursement was limited to the actual cost of perform- Not all requests for reimbursement ing work approved by FEMA. It could were approved by FEMA. Diff erences not exceed the net eligible cost of between the amount towns requested and restoring a facility, based on the pre- FEMA approved resulted from several disaster design of the facility and causes. Frequently there were disagree- on current applicable standards. ments as to how much of the required work was actually flood related. For Grant-in-lieu If an applicant desired example, a bridge or roadway may have to construct a larger or more elaborate been in need of repairs before the flood. facility, it could apply for a grant- If flood caused damages could be distin- in-lieu equal to the amount approved guished from repair needs existing before by FEMA for repair or replacement of the flood, FEMA would approve only those the damaged facility. The replacement directly caused by the flood. A common facility could be of a design, size discrepancy in the cost estimates for or type, or composed of materials signifi- roadway repair concerned the thickness 93 VC A. at 4: Milf 6 W C i't R.. i flbo i @7 '44 f ii,6i it i 0 UZI S 91,1ULAO A i:@ i 0.1shi C1 it" t 9, 4 US 'a Vt t t vi,@l ACUM t @Jhi vllij Y k I 6PI thiW Int @i: .0 -.4y @ , [email protected] 1 11 @@ % tt:@i ahz [email protected]: 1polk- i if ii @@i: iii Its @"M We [email protected]:Iii 44 t::i, !1: i j 6' 0 i di i @:;d Car WA: e v ol Ilemov @W:t [email protected] CC, [email protected] t V! au W: ch: [email protected] ant tozen I A 0: 0 Oca V cuuw: OW it: v t: eilt @tm 7 p e P" en [email protected] J. 4 Olfi6ition, E ::@!-en [email protected] gh!ii 9: 40 UmAntis Ov'j;4 ithd. Stinen, c:: watetwipt ed iitoid" @0` f[email protected] a &W, D, 9', cu'm e n ti t In d ra,:C: i a , --i'. a i6biitfu p ria D SIP 4 qqw: 01it .C Vw A 11 ii` ki '[email protected] '64. ej:gWiJi`*[email protected] @`H, &iy eNit 44411 lilt ii t ,I @O j l [email protected] t, C n141. PAC n.], St a.4ek ed.. wits 4 5046:i 6:@@ tr t ex C @T- Ij @H, e VC X iiV&t4i t4 Milt dHi&O Ui 4 a [email protected] @iit f re i tif f, t &V. j6f t*, i6b tit hi lk:[email protected], M' b ze r [email protected]: li zi @,[email protected] i:@ tlhil; ji:@ iE W:: hilt 6f f Idili :4 it ii6i& @f 4i 46int Ont.,! f:HJiniiiif'44: qu I I C iillivz"d- .:. claiii 44 it! ifiivi `44 Hf d. &C A ff [email protected] th C n r, t V J: @@T# ::740N. "1110 Ago %ale 'loom rKll'e: iN I Nt- Tax records and other documents from We Milford City Hall (Photo by Bob Coleman, the Milford Citizen) 94 of pavement needed. FEMA generally [email protected]@WIDBBIRI 0& zi allowed reimbursement for only two inches DISP KLl bi i!: iiii .... ... ... of pavement unless a pre-existing local road ordinance required a greater thick- oa:r ness. Some towns preferred repaving J, wn lumbei" f. i'm t: ei raii-ke: to a depth greater than two in Y 3i ches, d: 'chun 1, 'roa i t 9: 46 ft eA,A ej CsPecially wherc a greatcr dcpth was needed to match the level of undamaged ibl iii:1':i, I eiTbw niltdfffl:@i:, portions of the road. ei l:i tow t ];ivo Um C i Ymatierl:& In other cases, towns wished to .'aat e j improve facilities when they were repaired [email protected] V d or replaced. FEMA policies permitted J: a, te i:@ only funding repair or replacement to D if b6iod RPi:::96lia:::. 4 ti: ag m [email protected] the pre-flood condition, and did not approve funding of a "bettermentil. 'e",. it The requirement prohibiting an improvement P ,e t t 8: Ik us e:: 1, S:: bu to a f acili ty af f ected the repair and X:i i:: ii i replacement of some bridges. FEMA policy Incidavle We hic4r., t h' ijj permitted replacing bridges with an transpor ing::: improved flood flow capacity if the io,:@ eep,-, tvIet nd,icafe [email protected] 4 town had a higher design standard in e: nep eff ect. Some Connecticut towns either did not have a higher design standard e . .. .. ... .. ..... .. et in effect or were unable to document d town "101116'ef ii to. W, C, C:,@ wal V.. such a standard to FEMA's satisfaction, [email protected] h P toinvit ittih J..'. RE and were denied requests for reimbursement Ei, i C [email protected]:@n i4.Mi of design improvements on replacement w S.. 'bulk% bridges. [email protected] al oin' 'made itoi Vrni:@ihei (17) :il I i m4bil 'ni: Vi, e ."re Nas C: a; Nevertheless, in most cases, town I E W i:i @ii i:i: i, bridges that had to be replaced were d, i:i-__-.1on .0 d' rebuilt to a 100-year flood standard tinti i:: ddi* i4iitt!! f il f ae with financial assistance from FEMA. ma t [email protected]@46 b%c:: A e p, o sien Often the towns had their own standard 1,[email protected] p in place or could demonstrate a bridge [email protected] cXtC all replacement policy tied to the State @4 ace, nt::. to, ihii:@::: Ithdf iWW;[email protected]: standards (see section on State assistance WU;"11,1DUiAiY; Mo mahl later in this chapter). In other cases, the towns received a grant-in-lieu payment t ivi, from FEMA which permitted them to recon- @1 @i i4ilfi# struct the bridge to a higher design bi DEP Ad a 0. 64 j wiope 1 standard if the town assumed the extra i @,Eij,V iik 41spos, 41 6f I [email protected] Aibfi W w. e it: costs. Since most destroyed bridges were relatively small and replaced with box culverts, the increased expense .0 [email protected] for a higher design standard was not excessive. (17,94) Not all towns elected ............... 95 t Tj It ri V Al- -1 fit, Bridge over the Boston Post Road (U. S. R t. 1) at Golden Spur in East Lyme. The top photo was taken just after the storm, and the bottom photo was taken one year later. (Top photo by John Ligos, The Day; bottom photo by Gordon Alexander, The Day) 96 to replace destroyed bridges to the repair and reconstruction expenses until 100-year flood design level. For example, funds were received from FEMA (less North Stonington rebuilt to a 50-year 25 percent) and the State. Whenever FEMA and an applicant Madison was the only town to use town disagreed over the amount of eligible the Flexible Funding Grant. FEMA approved costs, OPM attempted to mediate the a Flexible Funding Grant request for dispute and work with the town in providing $27,252 (90 percent of $30,281 eligible adequate documentation to support their costs) covering eligible damages to application. When FEMA did not approve roads and bridges. Madison elected not the entire amount applied for, State to replace a destroyed bridge, and used funds were supplied to provide 25 percent the funds for construction of a needed of the eligible amount. Towns had to storm drain, as well as other road, pay any remaining costs from their own bridge and culvert repairs. (17,40,95) sources. (17) Federal Highway Administration Funds. State Bond Funds. Public Act 82-1 auth- Towns in the four southern counties orized the State of Connecticut to provide were also eligible for financial assistance the full 25 percent match of Federal from the Federal Highway Administration disaster assistance funds. Local munic- (FWHA) for all town roads constructed ipalities did not have to provide any with funds from the Federal-Aid Highway funds toward repairs eligible under System. FHWA provided 100 percent funding the Federal Public Assistance program. for repair or replacement of roads and They did have to pay the costs of needed bridges included in this program. Bridges repairs which were not eligible under that had to be replaced were upgraded the FEMA guidelines, any improvements to meet current Federal and State stan- beyond a return to prc-flood conditions, dards. and administrative costs. FHWA and the State Department Connecticut was the first state of Transportation (DOT) were responsible to provide the full 25 percent matching for this program -- FEMA and OPM were funds since 75/25 cost sharing was required not involved. The process for documenting by FEMA in May 1980 (86,96). Other damages was similar to that used by states had shared the 25 percent costs FEMA. Damage Survey Reports were prepared with local jurisdictions, usually 12 for each bridge or segment of highway 112 percent each. Had Connecticut followed that was damaged. Damage Survey Teams a similar policy, local governments were composed of representatives from would have incurred much higher costs. FHWA, the State DOT, and local municipal- Almost all towns with substantial losses ities. would have needed to issue bonds in order to pay their share of the costs. One hundred and sixty-one town Even with State and Federal funding road segments and bridges were restored assistance, many towns issued bonds under this program at a cost of $1,173,378, to pay the initial construction costs. including temporary and permanent repairs. Towns with less substantial losses were (19,41) These costs were divided among able to pay recovery costs out of their the counties as follows: operating budget or deferred the largest 97 Middlesex 73?664 program for the northern counties to Fairfield 64,390 function without any additional problems. New Haven 908,233 As of December 1983, a total of 33 towns, New London 127,091 two special districts, and two non-profit --------------------------- organizations from the four northern TOTAL $1,173,378 counties had received State assistance. A total of $1,636,752 in eligible losses was approved by OPM for a total payment in State aid of $409,191. (40) The NORTHERN COUNTIES amount approved and paid to each applicant is shown in Appendix D. No Federal financial assistance was available to the State or municipal- ities for damages to public facilities in the four northern counties. As part of the flood relief legislation, the Legislature provided that State bond monies could be used to provide the same percentage share of funding to STATE AGENCIES towns in the northern counties as it was providing for towns in the southern counties, i.e. 25 percent of eligible In addition to the financial assis- flood losses. This provision was qucs- tance provided to municipalities, several tioned by some town officials and State State agencies received reimbursement representatives from the northern counties from FEMA, FHWA, and State bond funds who felt that the intent of the legislation for damages to State owned facilities (especially the June 1983 amendments) or for emergency actions performed during was for the State to provide an equivalent and immediately after the floods. dollar amount instead of an equivalent share. A legal opinion requested by OPM supported the procedures established FEMA AND STATE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE by OPM of providing northern towns with 25 percent of their eligible costs. As of December 1983, a total of (17,97,98) $2,417,169 had been approved by FEMA and OPM for losses experienced by eight OPM operated the State assistance State agencies at locations in the southern program for the northern counties and counties. Payments to State agencies modeled it on the FEMA program. The totaled $1,174,349: $954,488 from FEMA, same documentation and application pro- and $219,861 from OPM. OPM had also cedures were used, and the FEMA forms approved $361,006 in applications by were modified to become OPM forms. DEP, DOT, and the University of Connecticut Damage Survey Teams composed of State for losses at locations in the northern and local representatives prepared the counties. OPM had paid $90,207 to these DSR's. agencies as of December 1983. (40) The amount paid to each agency is shown The initial experience gained in Appendix D. by OPM in assisting FEMA with operation of the Federal program allowed the State 98 Unlike some towns, the Department of Transportation experienced no difficul- ties in receiving approval from FEMA STREAM IMPROVEMENTS to repair or replace destroyed bridges to a higher hydrologic standard. DOT had clearly established standards in Immediately after the flood, the its design manuals that provided for Soil Conservation Service undertook bridges over a waterway with a drainage several emergency watershed protection area greater than one square mile to projects under its exigency program. pass a 100-year flood (94). These projects were funded 100% by the SCS at a total cost of $2,655,229 (see Chapter 2). Several non-exigency projects FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION were also funded by SCS. Non-exigency projects were funded 80 percent by SCS The Federal Highway Administration and 20 percent by a local sponsor. also providcd funding assistance for The Connecticut DEP served as the local State roads and bridges in the four sponsor for all non-exigency projects southern counties that are part of the in Connecticut. Federal Aid System. Reimbursement of repair or replacement costs were funded Eighty sites were investigated 100 percent by FHWA, including replacement by SCS for possible treatment under of bridges with an improved hydrological the non-exigency program, and twenty-five standard where needed. sites were selected by SCS and DEP for treatment. Only 20 sites were ultimately One hundred and sixty-four road included in the program, with work at segments and 39 bridges were eligible the remaining five sites funded by the for FHWA assistance. Costs as of December FEMA Public Assistance Program or directly 1983 for temporary and permanent repairs by the town. The last of the projects were $7,715,367 for bridges and $2,142,529 was completed in August 1983. Total for roads, for a total cost of $9,857,896 cost of the projects was $800,083.60. (41). The breakdown by county is: The SCS paid 80 percent ($640,066.88) and DEP paid 20 percent ($160,016.72). County Bridges Roads A summary description of the projects Middlesex $3,689,221 1,124,614 is provided in Table 4.6 and the location New Haven 776,161 482,699 of the projects is shown in Figure 4.7. New London 3,189,985 396,232 (35) Fairfield 0 138,984 ------------------------------------------ -_ TOTAL $7,715,367 $2,142,529 99 TABLE 4.6: SCS NON-EXIGENCY PROJECTS PROJECT KANE LOCATION 114EASURE TOTAL COST Fulling Mill Brook Long Meadow Brook Bladen's River Naugatuck OR,SBS,S $322,972 Belden Brook Hamden OR,SBS,S 20,825 Ralfway River Monroe SBS,S 40,974 Farm River E. Haven OR,SBS,S 16,284 Salmon River Granby ORSSBS'S 7,470 Branch of Salmon River Glastonbury OR,SBS,S 12,944 Roaring Brook Hungerford Brook Whalebone Creek Lyme/E. Haddam OR,SBS,S 43,950 Succor Brook E. Haddam OR.SBS,S 13,975 Moodus River E. Haddam OR,SBS,S 22,698 Wepawaug River Orange OR'S 7,641 Trout Brook W. Hartford SBS,S 53,271 Falls River Essex OR,SBS,S 15,156 Joshua Creek Lyme OR,SBS,S 21,219 Jeremy River Colchester OR,SBS,S 41,846 Pequabuck River Plymouth OR,SBS,S 94,275 Menunketesuck River Clinton SBS 64,584 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL $800,084 SCS Share - 80% $640,067 State Share - 20% 160,017 ---------------------------- TOTAL $800,084 OR - Obstruction Removal; SBS- Stream Bank Stabilization; S- Seeding Source: Soil Conservation Service, Storrs, CT 100 FIGURE 4.2: LOCATION OF SCS NOR-EXIGENCY PROJECTS Salmon River Trout brook Awl&* Branch of Salmon River Pequabuck River Jeremy River 0 Fulling Mill Brook Long Meadow Brook Bladen's River Belden Brook Halfway River Wepawaug River 0 ".2 Moodus River Succor Brook Joshua Creek Farm River Menunketesuck River Roaring Brook Hungerford Brook Falls River Whalebone Creek Source: Soil Conservation Service, Storrs, CT 101 V X A Z* 7- '-4 Channel restoration by the Soil Conservation Service on the Falls River, Essex (Photos courtesy of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Storrs, CT, and Haddam, CT) 102 CHAPTER 5 POST-FLOOD PROJECTS AND INVESTIGATIONS Could Save Lives, Property New Flood-Warning System Backed By STEVE GRANT tion of people and movable property. Authori- tubes, 12 inches in diameter, with rain collec- Courant Stqff Writer ties now rely on a network of volunteers tors and radio transmitters. The depth indica- A computerized flood-warning system around the state to 'supply information uLi tors are floats that check river depth. Setting that the state is being asked to fund could rainfall and stream flows. up 150 rainfall and stream monitors have prevented millions of dollars in proper- The new system, called ALERT - for statewide would cost about $1 million, Curtis ty damage last June - and paid for itself in a Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time - said. matter of hours - a federal hydrologist said would comprise small sampling stations His agency estimates that there is a Wednesday. Within river watersheds. Some would monitor nearly one in five chance that in some year During that storm, the National Weather river depth, and others would measure raiie- before the turn of the century, flood damage Service measured 8 inches of rain in much of fall. Information would be radioed to the in Connecticut will exceed $500,000. the state and forecast heavy flooding. What communities and a central state facility, [email protected] "This won't prevent a house from being forecasters didn't know, and wouldn't find out usual r heavy rain could be spotted and the washed away," Curtis said. "But 10 percent to U ntil the next day, was that the Essex ar @a got area watched closely. 35 percent of the damages in a flood are pre- lmost twice as much rain as other :reas, The ra a infall monitors are 12-foot high veritable." causing millions 0( dollars in flood damage. "Nobody understood the gravity of the situation," said David C. Curtis, a flash-flood hydrologist With the Northeast River Fore- Report: state action sought cast Center in Bloomfield, the weather se, vice's sister agency. Flood damage in Connecticut averages $50 million yearly, he said. to repaitr 488 unsafe dams A new system being promoted by the weather service would continuously monitor rainf all, its intensity and the levels of streams HARTFORD (AP) - been listed as nwfe and *Expand the DEP Iwg, 33 feet high and a and automatically repo" the information to a Nine months after Con. in need of immediate re- dam safety W from four century old - is am g Computer network. necticut was devastated pairs in a 1978 inspection to 2o at a cost of about Connecticut on dams mom in The General Assembly is considering a by the worst flooding in 27 by the Army Corps of $200,000 per year. need of repair, but town bill that would authorize bondin g for a years, the state remains Engineers. They had not 0 Establish a special officials, facing budget $210,000 pilot project that would install the dotted with unsafe dams been fixed, bnd its dam safety pro- dedicated fund for dam re- problems, have held off on warning system in rivers in Hartford, Stam- The 44 remaining dams the $500,000 project. The ford, Norwich, Southington, Essex a pain is criticized in a new listed as hazardous were p dam and pond are part of nd New report as "understaffed, checked after the storm i:-p Milford. The proposal has cleared the Env1_ overworked and inade. and found to have survived year- a town recreation area. The Manchester case is ronment Committee and likely will be consid- quatelyfunded." without further critical Require registration typical, not unusual, ered next week by the Finance, Revenue and "If you don't have the deterioration. of all dams not owned by Warner said Wednesday. Bonding Committee's bonding subcommittee. tmmediate public atten. The worst dam collapse the state, with annual fees "I'd give it a reasonable chance. Any tion on it, it's easy for peo. occurred at an earthen expected to produce aboat time we can spend a dollar and save 10, I'm in ple to forget, but we've dam in Essex. Its failure F&,000 per year. favor," said Rep. Michael D. Ryback, a Har- bWl got a serious prob- triggered the collapse of Set up a low-interest Winton Democrat who is House co-chairMan lem," said Benjamin six more dams down. W: program to help dam of the subcommittee. Warner, director of the stream on the Falls River. owners make repairs. The six communities together would pay Department of Environ- Five homes were de. mental Protection's water stroyed and a factory and Increase state aid to another $120,000 to implement the project cities and towns under the The federal government would provide corn: resources division. roads heavily damaged. flood and erosion control puter programs, expertise and training. Consulting engineers Losses in Essex were esti- program to provide money who studied the state's mated at about $4 million. for repairs of municipally The system, Curtis said, provides civil &= concluded that the "This same type of de- owned dams that provide a preparedness officials with speedier notice of state has never imposed struction could occur at "substantial public bene- potenUI flooding, the key to timely evacua- existing legal penalties for any time throtIghout Con_ fic, (allure to comply with necticut" during heavy dam repair orders and has rains, said John W. Ander- 0 Give the DEP fail au- tailed to operate a pro- son, the DEP's deputy thority over all dam repair gram of regularly sched- commissioner. projects by ending the De. uled dam inspections. The Legislature met in partment of Administra- The rainstorm of June special session in June au- tive Services' role in 4-7. which dumped 10 to 12 thorizing $34 [email protected] in projects costing $100,0W or inches of rain on the state, borrowing to pay for flood more. 1killed 12 people and caused cleanup, road and - The study, issued Feb. damage that state govern- repairs and some work an 28, criticized the state for ment estimated at $277 dams. it also ordered a "attempting to accomplish 103 The preceeding chapters described hazard mitigation measures, the interagency the immediate post-flood emergency relief team focuses on actions that can be and recovery actions. The June 1982 taken by Federal agencies. The team flooding was of such magnitude and caused is required to produce a report within so much damage that it generated a number 15 days of the disaster declaration. of special studies and projects relating The interagency team that evaluated to long-range flood control projects, the Connecticut flood disaster was composed floodplain management, and hazard mitiga- of representatives from FEMA, EPA, HLM, tion actions. This chapter briefly SBA, COE, ASCS, NWS, and FHWA. The describes these special investigations Connecticut DEP, Water Resources Unit, and projects. participated on the team, and representa- tives from individual towns were also involved. Fifteen-Day Report. The team members HAZARD MMGATION REPORTS assembled at the Disaster Field Office in Middletown on June 17. They divided into field teams and over the next two The declaration of Connecticut days conducted site visits in thirty as a major disaster area triggered FEMA towns in southern Connecticut. The requirements for two types of hazard entire team reassembled at the DFO and mitigation studies. First, an Interagency determined that there was potential Flood Hazard Mitigation Team was activated for hazard mitigation measures in 17 to investigate and prepare a report of the towns they had visited. within 15 days of the disaster declaration regarding measures that could be taken Team members then revisited each -- especially by Federal agencies -- of the 17 towns and met with local offic- to reduce future flood losses. A follow- ials to discuss the nature and types up report was prepared 90 days later of damages and potential for flood hazard describing progress and problems in mitigation. These meetings resulted implementing the recommendations contained in the development of mitigation recommen- in the first report. Second, under dations for 13 towns -- eight of the FEMA regulations and as part of the towns received specific recommendations Federal/State Agreement for disaster and 5 others were included in several assistance, the State was required to general recommendations. The report prepare its own Hazard Mitigation Report. was completed by the team and submitted to the FEMA regional director in Boston on June 29, 1982. Copies of the report INTERAGENCY FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION were also submitted to each of the involved REPORT Federal and State agencies and to the towns included in the report. (99) Following every flood that receives a major disaster declaration, representa- Examples of specific recommenda- tives from as many as 12 Federal agencies tions made by the interagency team include: work with affected State and local govern- ments to identify measures that can Hamden, implement a storm water management be taken to reduce future flood losses. program to avoid an increase in recurrent Although concerned with all types of flooding at the Meadowbrook Co-op. 104 Milf ord. Relocate offices and records by local public works or park depart- out of the City Hall basement. ments to maintain the flow capacity New Haven, Reevaluate the five element of both natural and man-made channels. project plan for the Morris Cove-Airport Erosion control Proper erosion control area to fully relocate Morris Creek. measures should be required on all Wallingford Acquire and relocate the cleared land under construction, and Gopian Mobile Home Park situated within soil conservation practices should the State Stream Channel encroach- be used on agricultural land. ment lines. Floodplain zoning. Floodplain zoning Cheshire Construct a dike to protect ordinances should be enforced by all the wastewater treatment plant. towns, and open space corridors and Essex. Implement a temporary building natural valley storage areas should moratorium in the flooded areas until be retained in their existing conditions. studies to prevent future damages Flood insurance A technical assistance are completed. program should be started to inform Franklin. Remove unused bridge on Old and educate people about the NFIP, Route 32. and high-hazard floodplain areas slioulJ Norwich. Reconsider flood protection be posted. plans for the Yantic River floodplain. General recommendations that could be implemented by most towns or on a Ninety-Day Progress Report. Following regional basis included: completion of the Interagency Flood Hazard Miti_Lgation RC4LQXL it was reviewed Floo& forerast and warning systtms. by the Federal and State agencies with Development of the ALERT automated representatives on the team. NWS, SBA, flood warning system to help reduce FHWA, and EPA provided comments to the residential and commercial flood losses. FEMA regional director within an estab- Prc2arednesi Planning. Each community lished 30-day response period. Each must have a detailed preparedness of these agencies indicated their general plan outlining the duties and responsi- support of and concurrence with the bilities of each department within recommendations in the report. the town. Dams All dams repaired or replaced Ninety days after the original should conform to current DEP standards. hazard mitigation report was prepared, FEMA and the State should investigate seven of the Federal agencies (FEMA, development of a program which could NWS, EPA, SBA, COE, ASCS, and FHWA), provide low-interest loans or other and the DEP Water Resources Unit reviewed financing assistance to dam owners the progress that had been made in imple- for repairs of inadequate dams. menting the recommendations. A report Roads and Blidges. Design of replacement describing the progress was submitted bridges should be in accordance with on October 15, 1982. (100) current standards providing adequate protection from debris and scour-related The report indicated progress f a ilur e. with several general hazard mitigation Channels and culvert;. Development opportunities, including: of a continuous maintenance program should be required and carried out - Widespread support for development 105 of an ALERT system. SECTION 406 HAZARD MITIGATION Award of a contract to review dam IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES safety. All communities Difticipating in Section 406 of Public Law 93-298, the NFIP. and the Federal-State Disaster Assistance Agreement No. FEMA-661-DR, required Problems with implementation of the State of Connecticut to prepare the general recommendations were also a hazard mitigation plan in exchange noted, such as: for receiving Federal financial assistance for the June 1982 floods. The plan, -Concern about legislative approval Section 406 Hazard Mitigation Implementa- of the ALERT system. tion Measures was prepared by the DEP -Lack of funding for rcpair of private Natural Resources Center and Water Re- dams. sources Unit. It was completed and -Conflicts between FEMA regulations signed by the Governor in August, 1983. and towns regarding restoration of bridges to pre-disaster design versus The plan provided a very brief replacement to the 100-year design. description of the various natural hazards to which Connecticut is subject, including With regard to specific hazard the floods of June 1982. It then inven- mitigation opportunities, progress was toried existing mitigation measures noted in a number of areas, such as: implemented by Federal, State, regional, municipal, and private organizations. -Milford City Hall basement has not It also described mitigation measures been reoccupied. implemented or investigated for the -Franklin officials have made a request towns addressed by the Interagency Hazard for funding to remove the Old Route Mitigation Team Report and by State 32 bridge. or Federal agencies. -Several methods are being explored by Wallingford, SCS, and DEP of reducing In preparing the report, DEP submit- the flood hazard vulnerability of ted a questionnaire to twenty State the Gopian Mobile Home Park. agencies requesting information on their roles in flood mitigation, preparedness, Problems included: response, and recovery. The responses, combined with information concerning -A review of the floodplain ordinance the existing situation and known problems, in Wallingford indicated the ordinance resulted in development of a large number not being strictly enforced. of recommendations for flood hazard -Homeowners in Franklin that received mitigation. The recommendations were substantial damages were uninsured divided into first and second priority and, therefore, not eligible for acqui- action items. The first priority actions sition of their properties under the were to be supervised directly by the FEMA Section 1362 program. Governor's office, and responsibility -Watershed communities above Norwich for the second priority items was delegated do not support an SCS proposed solution to DEP. (101) Information provided to flooding in Norwich. for both first and second priority actions included: required action, when it should begin, who has responsibility, 106 source of funding, lead agency, and NWS communications, dissemination of costs and benefits of the action. information to users, and user response to the NWS information. Based on their First priority actions were divided investigations, the survey team developed Into s1nort-term Ina long-term actions. a series of findings and recommendations. The nine short-term actions included, The results of their survey are contained among others: preparation of a State in a report titled Disaster Survey Re2ort, statute on Flood Management; improvements June 5-7- 1982, Southern New Englan!J in the dam safety program; a workshop Flood, (102) for commercial and industrial property owners of flood preparedness; and develop- The report stated the following ment of an automated flood warning system general conclusions: for all state owned dams posing a signifi- cant threat to public safety. The NWS role in providing forecast and warning services Nine long-term actions included, to the affected people during among others: draft legislation to the flood event was commendable require a standard for municipal road, in many instances. culvert and bridge con3truction and reconstruction; revised Emergency Opera- It was remarkable during this tions Plans for all State agencies involved flood event that not more in responding to floods; a workshop(s) lives were lost. Part of on updating municipal emergency operations this is attributable to the plans to include a flood element; and heightened public awareness implement a pilot program for a statewide that resulted from the ... automated flood warning system. services provided by the NWS. Sixty-seven second priority actions While the flood potential were divided into categories: legislative and special weather statements and regulation actions (5); education heightened the awareness of (6); planning and special studies (16); flooding, the recognition coordination (12); funding (9); staffing of the magnitude of this event, (4); and policy and program (15). in comparison to other less serious floods, was not suffi- ciently conveyed to public NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE and disaster officials. There DISASTER SURVEY REPORT were also a number of internal NWS problems. Beginning June 9, a survey team composed of several representatives Among the recommendations made from National Weather Service Offices by the survey team were: in Connecticut, New York, and Massachusetts conducted a survey of the southern New - Implement floodproofing measures at England area affected by the June 1982 the NERFC offices. floods. The team examined the warning - WSO Bridgeport should improve its services that were provided by the National spotter rainfall network to provide Weather Service, how precipitation and data on small streams. flooding data were collected, internal - Terms such as major and severe should 107 be used in NWS releases to identify potcntial major flooding, and releases should be more action-oriented by DAM SAFETY PROGRAM including information such as need for caution and comparison with recent or record floods. - Clarification of responsibilities DAM SAFETY PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT of the NERFC in Bloomfield, WSFO in Boston, and WSOs need to be specified The special flood relief legi- in dealing with flash flooding and slation enacted after the June floods floods on small streams. included a requirement that DEP undertake - Procedures should be established such a comprehensive study of the State's that the NERFC or WSO alert OCP officials dam safety program. The report was whenever there is the possibility to: of potential flood problems, especially prior to weekends or holidays. - Estimate the number of public and - NAWAS should be used during a flood private dams requiring repair. event to convey warning and flood - Review the function, environmental information to State and local fanout impact, and public benefit of those points. private dams in need of repair which - Real-time reporting precipitation either pose a significant threat to stations should be installed as needed. public safety or provide substantial - The local Flood Warning System used public benefits. in Norwich should be expanded to other - Review the adequacy of existing communities prone to flood problems authorities, procedures, staffing, who express an interest and willingness and funding pertaining to dam safety. to commit the volunteer resources - Make recommendations for improving necessary to implement an effective dam safety regulations and alternative self-help program. mechanisms for funding the repair - The ALERT automated local flood warning or removal of public and private dams. system should be promoted and advocated as an effective non-structural measure The DEP Water Resources Unit con- to the State of Connecticut anJ Indivi- tracted with a consulting engineering dual communities and areas that have firm to conduct the study and to develop significant flash flood problems. a computer data base management system to compile all available dam information. Many of the recommendations con- The report, Connecticut Dam Saf ety Program tained in the report had been implemented Evaluation Re2ort, was completed in by the f all of 1983. February 1983. (102) COMPREHENSIVE DAM SAFETY PROGRAM The DEP Water Resources Unit evalu- ated the consultant's report and subse- quently developed a comprehensive dam safety program to be phased in over 108 a two year period. A report describing background information. the proposed program and dtaf t legislation to authorize and fund the program was For the 1984-85 legislative session, submitted to the Legislature in early WRU proposed that the legislature enact 1983. (101,103) comprehensive dam safety legislation, to be drafted by DEP in 1983; provide The dam safety program proposed funds to undertake repairs to State by the Water Resources Unit included owned dams as deemed necessary by DEP necessary legislative actions and WRU to ensure their safety; and, based on activities. The actions proposed for a report to be prepared by DEP, provide legislative action in 1983-84 were: necessary resources to continue the development of a Comprehensive Dam Saf cty -Appropriation of $200,000 to fund Program. six positions for the Dam Safety Program. The legislature passed PA 83-38, -Require all dams within Connecticut An Act Concerning . Dam Safety, during to be registered with the Commissioner the June session in 1983 (Appendix F). of DEP; establish a fee for such The Act provided most of what DEP had registration to help offset program proposed except that the authorization costs; and rcquirc the Commi6sioner for DEP to construct or repair dams to establish a schedule and periodi- and flood control structures was limited cally inspect all dams. to projects costing up to $250,000. -Establish a low-interest loan program to assist private owners with repair Passage of the dam safety legisla- of their dams. tion permitted the DEP Water Resources -Permit a municipality, through its Unit to make substantial progress during flood and erosion control board, 1983 in implementing a comprehensive to enter into agreement with the Dam Safety Program. The WRU priorities State to receive assistance with established for 1983-84 were: maintaining and/or ensuring the safety of a dam when such structure - Maintain an updated inventory of provides a substantial public benefit all dams. to the municipality. - Implement a dam registration program -Allow the Commissioner of DEP to with a registration fee. undertake necessary repairs to ensure - Initiate a standardized inspection the safety of State owned dams which program, supported by inspection do not exceed an expenditure of fees. $1,000,000. - Establish formal enforcement proce- dures. The Water Resources Unit submitted - Expedite repairs to State owned these proposals to the legislature in dams. three proposed pieces of legislation - Expedite engineering reviews submitted (An Act Concerning Dam Safety; An Act by private dam owners. Concerning Funding For Municipal Flood - Promulgate regulations to implement And Erosion Control Board Dam Safety loan programs. Systems; and An Act Concerning Funding - Participate with municipal flood For Low-Interest Loans To Owners of and erosion control boards. Private Dams), along with supporting - Draft comprehensive dam legislation. 109 For 1984-85, WRU proposed to: submit a report to the legislature reeval- uating Dam Saf ety Program needs; promulgate FLOOD CONTROL STMIES AND PROJECTS dam safety regulations; evaluate the need for a public notice process in issuing dam permits; report to the legi- slature on the feasibility of instituting STATEWIDE SURV13Y OF FLOOD PROBLEMS a State tax on all privately-owned real estate located on the shores of a lake Following the June floods, DEP or pond formed by a State-owned dam; received several requests from town and continue to implement the established officials for flood control studies Dam Safety Program. (103) and projects. Many of these were for areas that had not previously been iden- tified as flood hazards. In response, DEP requested each town to identify REPAIR OF STATE-OWNED DAMS the type and location of their flood problems. Potty-ft've towns provided The emergency flood legislation information to DEP. DEP Water Resources (PA 82-1) provided $4.5 million to repair Unit used this survey data along with State-owned dams, both those damaged other information to reassess prior- as a result of the June floods and others ities for flood control projects. (86) in need of repair. As of September 1983, most of these funds had been commit- ted by DEP to begin detailed engineering inspections on nine dams and design CORPS OF ENGINEERS INVESTIGATIONS and repairs on several others. Included in this group is the damaged Messerchmidt The COE initiated reconnaissance Pond Dam in Westbrook which DEP acquired studies (Section 205 studies) in more from. a private owner in October 1982. than a dozen watersheds to determine if Federal involvement in a flood control As of December 1983, repairs had project was justified. The areas investi- been completed on eight of the 13 State- gated by the COE included (101): owned dams that were damaged during the June floods, and the other five -Wepawaug River, Orange and Milford were in repair or design stages. DEP -Mad River, Waterbury did not plan to rebuild the two State-owned -Means Brook and Burying Ground dams that failed (Mansure Pond Dam and Brook, Shelton Lower Joshuatown Pond Dam). (60,101) -Several small watersheds, Danbury -Beaver Brook, Ansonia -West River, New Haven and Woodbridge -Quinnipiac River, Wallingford -Miller's Pond, Waterford -West River, Guilford -Morris Creek, New Haven -Nonewaug River, Woodbury -Falls River, Westbrook and Essex 110 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SrWIES a) to evaluate the reduction in flooding on the Farm River which could have After the June floods, the SCS been realized with certain previously reassessed its priorities for watershed recommended flood improvement projects investigations being conducted as part in place; and of the Central Coastal River Basin Study. b) to verify the accuracy of the computer It also added two watersheds to the model utilized to establish stream s tudy: the Indian River in Milford channel encroachment lines along and Orange and the Menunketesuck River the Yantic River in Norwich. (104) in Clinton (101). FEMA FLOM INSURANCE STUDIES The DEP Water Resources Unit request- ed that the Federal Emergency Management Agency perform new Flood Insurance Studies for the Falls River in Essex and Westbrook, the Pattaconk River and Great Brook in Chester, and the Deep River in Deep River. These restudies were requested because of the observed flood levels, changes in stream hydrology as a result of dam failures, channel modifications caused by flood waters and post-flood channel improvements, and removal or modification of bridges. In response to these requests, FEMA funded a restudy of the Falls River because of the drastic changes in stream hydrology due to several dam failures and extensive channel improvements by the SCS. Restudies of the other two streams had not been approved by the f all of 1983. (21) YANTIC AND FARM RIVERS SIUDY The DEP Water Resources Unit auth- orized a special flood study of the Yantic and Farm Rivers, designed to report on the nature and extent of the June 1982 flooding. The objectives of this special study were: and developed a proposal for the equipment and costs involved. The total statewide ADDITIONAL INITIATIVES program was estimated to cost about gl,0001000. The State would design the network and purchase and install equipment. NERFC would provide guidance FLOOD FORECAST AND WARNING SYSTEMS on the purchase, installation and use of the hardware, as well as assistance Prior to the June 1982 floods, with the use of NWS computer software the Connecticut DEP, with the assistance specifically designed for the system. of the NWS Northeast River Forecast The Office of Civil Preparedness would Center, developed a preliminary proposal work with municipal officials in prepared- for a statewide automated flood forecast ness planning, and SCS would work with and warning system known as ALERT (Auto- individual property owners to develop mated Local Evaluation in Real Time). flood preparedness plans which tie into The proposed system included numerous the automated warnings. Municipalities automated precipitation, temperature, wishing to participate in the program tide and stream gages at selected locations would be asked to develop and maintain throughout the State and a series of a flood preparedness plan, to provide base stations at strategic points to an annual maintenance fee for equipment, receive the data generated by the gaging and, possibly, to purchase the base stations. station computer. Intended primarily to provide In 1983, Representative Lyons warnings for flash floods, the system of Stamford submitted legislation to would permit users (NWS and State and create an automated flood warning system. local officials) to be aware of the The system would consist of about 20 actual amount and rates of rainfall sets of automated temperature and precip- and river rise occurring in the monitored itation gages, stream and tide gages, watersheds. This "real-time" information plus computer access to and analysis combined with NWS forecasts of additional of data for about 20 of the most flood precipitation and a computerized model prone subregional drainage basins. of the watershed, would permit immediate The bill was supported by many organiza- prediction of the time and level of tions and municipalities, including flooding. Awareness of flood potential FEMA, DEP, OCP, the Housatonic River would be increased significantly, and Commission, and the towns of Southington, six to twelve hours of additional warning Norwich, Hartford, and Stamford. Because time would be provided. The extra warning the bill was not submitted as part of time would enable businesses to move the original DEP budget request, and contents of stores and factories and due to the newness of the concept and give them time to employ floodproofing the limited State budget for FY 84, materials and procedures. Homeowners the bill was not passed. would be able to save automobiles and contents of garages, basements and first Momentum for the project, however, floors. continued to increase. On April 7, 1983, the DEP Commissioner issued a After the June floods, DEP policy requiring that an automated flood continued to work with NERFC and SCS warning system be required as part of 112 any flood control project. The Governor Commercial and Industrial Property Owners endorscd a flood warning system by includ- Workshop: On June 22, 1983, DEP, DED, ing it among the first priority items and the COE sponsored a workshop for in the Section 406 Hazard Mitigation commercial and industrial flood prepared- Implementation Measures report released ness. Topics included: Federal and in August 1983. State assistance; warning systems; flood- proofing; preparedness; and use of a DEP planned to resubmit a new "flood audit" to determine the benefits flood warning system proposal 'in the and costs of undertaking flood Pf epaf edness 1994 legislative session. SCS and DEP measures. (101) were also negotiating to set up the precipitation monitoring portion of Dam Safety Conference: On September the system and two pilot municipal 26 and 27 DEP sponsored a conference systems. DEP hoped that, if an agreement for dam owners. Topics included: COE was reached between DEP and SCS for dam inspection program; dam failures the pilot projects and the statewide in Connecticut in June 1982; hydrologic precipitation network, the legislature and hydraulic considerations for dam would follow through with a full funding safety; investigation and repair of package. (86,99,100) deficient dams; responsibility for dam safety; operation and maintenance; emer- gency operations plans; insurance; and DEP regulations. (101) WORKSHOPS AND CONFERENCES The 1982 floods led directly to a series of DEP sponsored workshops FEDERAL-STATE FLOOD CRITIQUE and conferences in 1982 and 1983. On January 12, 1983 representatives Flood Management Workshop: On October from FEMA and seven State agencies met 27, 1982, DEP and OCP conducted a workshop at OCP offices in Hartford to review to promote the development of improved the performance of Federal, State and municipal flood management programs. local government efforts in response Planning for this workshop began in to the June 1982 floods. Discussions February 1982, but attendance at the concerned the development of damage workshop increased dramatically as a estimates for the disaster declaration result of the June floods. Workshop request; dealing with media and political topics included: Federal and State inquiries; location of Disaster Assistance assistance; drainage basin concepts; Centers; assistance to individuals; operation and maintenance of flood struc- public assistance; and hazard mitigation. tures; development of a stormwater manage- (105) ment plan; development of self-help early warning systems; emergency damage reporting; avoiding coastal flooding and erosion impacts; and floodproofing. ACQUISMON OF FLOCD DAMAGBD PROPERTIES Approximately 300 municipal officials attended. (101) FEMA administers a program (Section 1362) that authorizes it to acquire properties damaged by floods under certain 113 conditions. The structures must either the event of a future disaster. (28,108) be damaged 50 percent or more by a single flood or 25 percent or more by floods three times within five years. The program has several restrictions, the CRISIS COUNSELING 1 most important being: structures must be covered by flood insurance; owners The Department of Mental Health must be willing to sell the property; provided crisis counseling to flood and the community or State must be willing victims through Project H20: Help To to take title to the property and convert Others In Connecticut. This project it to public open space. was funded by a $71,000 grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. The FEMA fegional office in Boston The purposes of the proiect were: identified three properties in Mansfield that appeared to meet all program - To identify unmet needs of flood criteria. The three property owners victims; were all covered by flood insurance - To help those still in need of assist- and were interested in participating ance, where possible; in the program, the structures were - To encourage positive coping patterns damaged more than 50 percent during and continued use of existing community the June floods (and have a history resources; of flooding), and the Town Council of - To determine what support systems Mansfield voted in December 1982 to were employed by those affected by enter into an agreement with FEMA to the disaster; and participate in the program. As of Sep- - To document needs met. tember 1983, FEMA was conducting a review of the properties and an environmental The project began in December assessment of the impact of acquiring 1982 and continued through June 1983. the properties. (106,107) The DMH assembled a small staff of mental health professionals for the project and gave them special training before initiating field outreach. Initially, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY the project team hoped to obtain the names of flood victims from FEMA, but In September 1982, DED received FEMA was unwilling to release this infor- a $100,000 grant from the Federal Economic mation because the names of flood victims Development Administration for "Development are considered confidential. As an of an Adjustment Strategy for the State alternative, the project team reviewed of Connecticut (Disaster Recovery)". records maintained by DIM to identify Under this grant, technical assistance areas that were severely affected by teams were established to provide a flooding. more complete follow-up to businesses affected by the flooding. The grant Using this information, the team is also being used by DED to prepare made telephone calls and door-to-door an "Emergency Assistance Response Plan" visits in the affected areas seeking outlining the mobilization of its staff flood victims who were in need of crisis members who are designated to respond counseling. Between January and June in assigned regions of the State in 1983, 681 clients were interviewed as 114 part of the project. Table 4.4 provides affect th-e mental health of victims. a summary of information on those inter- - maintain a close working relationship viewed. with FEMA. - include worker stress and their needs In June 1983, Project H20 presented for support and debriefing after the a conference entitled Mental Health disaster in the plan of follow-up. [email protected] Who Needs It? Worker-s - develop an outreach program that also and Victims in Disaster. Red Cross focuses on the health care needs of personnel presented information about victims. (80,109). the impact phases of disasters. Project H20 staff presented case histories of thtee clients and a worker to illustrate emotional reactions to disaster stress and guide discussion of ways to cope with stressed clients. A final report on the project was prepared which provides details on the needs of disaster victims, including disaster workers, and makes many recom- mendations for improving services to victims of the next disaster in Connect- icut. Suggestions from Project H20 clients and participants at the June conference are included on the following topics: State government; city/town government; Small Business Administrations; Disaster Assistance Center; Internal Revenue Service; Red Cross; and health/ mental health intervention. Recommendations for conducting future crisis counseling projects included: - redesign of forms used and modifica- tions to information collected from victims. - use of staff from additional disci- plines such as gerontology, nursing, and sociology. - maintain collaborative relationships with agencies involved in the disaster. - maintain consistent and ongoing training of mental health workers through role- playing, improving listening skills and increasing the awareness of all disaster workers that their interventions 115 TABLE 5.1! PROJECT H20 SU10MY (01919 COUN99LIRM Number of individuals served (persons who have been and/or are currently receiving services through the Section 413 program). Total number persons 661 Total number females 411 Total number males 270 Total number minority 54 Total number children (under 18) 58 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Primary problems: While some individuals may have more than one problem, only one problem per individual should be indicated. TYPE OF PROBLEM NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS FOR WHOM THIS IS THE MOST SALIENT PROBLEM Agitation/depression/anxiety 150 Disaster fears 331 Acting out behavior-adults 0 Acting out/school adj. children 1 Alcohol/Drug abuse 4 Marital/family problems 16 Physical complaints 185 Irritability, arguing 8 Sleep disturbances 24 Eating disorders 3 Accident proneness 0 Suicidal 0 Need for information/assistance 52 Other (specify) 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Services provided: Show the number of individuals receiving each service. More than one type of service may be indicated per individual. ASSISTANCE PROVIDED NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS Screening and diagnostic 681 Information and referral 628 Individual counseling 159 Group counseling 0 Advocacy 21 Other (specify) 2 Source: Proiect H 0: Help to Others in Connecticut. Final Re ort. 1983*. Dr. Joseph M. Torres, et al. 116 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF FLOOD DAMAGES AND RESPONSES IN SELECTED MUNICIPALITIES Battered Essex Struggles To Dig Out By CLAUDIA VAN NES Clinton. But Essex, a community of stately d @s bren ng," he said of the two dams that a ski Courant Correspondent homes, many of which were built by sea ca bu day, sending a torrent of water . . tains, remained isolated Therp waq nn rinhl w rranhina infn h-ou, -A -h;- ESSEX - Most shoreline communities drinking water, schools' on section of Essex still looked more se were returning to normal Tuesday, but the and roads remained clowe'lladdam Meeting Today 'vo weekend flooding. li=war zone than the quiet village it was four la ago. Drab green Nati trucks were dispensingona' To Act on Flood Repair Naytisonal Guard nd state police dr-1 tMar, Ion jugs to residents, and th were positioned along oads, allowing only residents and emergency personnel to Cross had set up a disaster HADDAM - Voters will decide ture of more than $7,500, Lund- Hall, issuing food, blankets enter the 1yo7ton and Centerbrook sections. U 1today at a special town meeting gren said. An 8 p.m.-to- awn curfew had been imposed table toilkg Were get because of scattered looting, Essex, Centerbrook and 1vo whether to appropriate about The requested $332,111 will Water service had been restored in Deep Selectman James Ken ;332,000 for repair or replace- pay for the repair or replacement River, schoolchildren went back to school in irril as he worked in the ' ranent of four town bridges dam- of the Dublin Hill Road, Beaver ged by the June 6 flood. -A- "T'll .... ir r-Ocrif i -- Meadow Road, Ponsett Road and begin at Scovil Road bridges. The Ponsett ;t Select- Road and Scovil Road bridges are Flood-damaged bridge opens @aidMon- not passable now, Lundgren said. The actual low bids for the pro- By ROBERT FREDERICKS Dormlly said Wges at Bridje and Maple StreM will receive jects add up to less that the total Telegrram staff writer be repaired "last because it's on y a slight inconvenience ng from $332,111 requested, but select- for people who use them to take other routes." il Emer- men calculated the a priation MILFORD - One of five bridges damaged by flood The public works director said the next job the depart- ney. The based on the second"rroest bids waters June 5 has reopened but it may be several weeks Ment Will tackle is the bridge at Peck's Mill- He expects a electors plus 10 percent, for contingency before the others are repaired, according to Public Works crew to start work on it this week. pvnanfli- knirrunvac r.tindaran unirl @i- Chester Storm Repairs @e b- '000 d- Road, Bridge Costs Could Go to $4,200 nt By LUCY GUSTAFSON Blair rioted wryly. plans for the Canine Control Shelter relief. The town, through the non-profit CHESTER-Final assessment of the Also the town must repair the wooden which has been approved by all town organization of Chester Housing Inc,, is cost of flood damage to roads and bridge on Wig Hill which survived re- boards and has received a special ex. planning to construct 17 units which will bridges in Chester is $900,000 if the cent flood, but deterioration has set in ception to be constructed on land owned be rented to elderly who qualify. Straits Road and the No. 2 bridge of and the bridge can only be used one by David Joslow off Route 148 up the Blair reported that Joslow agrees to 6 North Main Street are rebuilt - and way. Blair said it must be repaired or hill and across from the Chart House tax based on net income of those who $1,200.000 if a third bridge, also on replaced. Restaurant in the present Industrial rent the units and the Chester Housing North Main Street which badly needs The first selectman explained that Park. Inc., will be in charge of the operation attention _ is done, First Selectman the assessments on flood damage were However, In granting the special ex- of the project. The selectmen approved Robert Blair reported at the Board of done by the Federal Disaster Office in ception a stipulation was made that it of this plan. Selectmen's meeting Tuesday evening. Middletown that sent out teams to the must have barbed wire on top of the In conjunction with the elderly hous- As President Reagan has declared various stricken towns and areas. Chain link fence planned to surround the ing units, the selectmen also reviewed the area a federal emergency area, the These assessments were evaluated in Canine control shelter. the nmnnqed aureement with the town's hority con Bristol Flooding Milder Than in 1955, River Reading Shows sewer sys- By MI'CHELE BLOCK with the US. Geological survey. In contrast, Cervione mid, the can be incorporsted into the ow downtown am to = their that city officials insist is not Juspices of C-aid StV,'f Writee Based on thatIreadin verseu, demir -ad cl, the re- Geological Survey - which now Call $1.3 million movatiod Of efforts to re cent nom wft it be aracter- a calculating flood levels all over ockwell Park, oustion Of the area a flood plain. Tivel am includes a 10-acre PCA would $,iBR" - Pit' tied a, oni -year flood. the state - has d . 200. p4- It city officials hope will .u,,M%n @[email protected] ca=h2n 10 by Z&agl,[email protected], dl"dd by the P, SCity Fn neer Willis. H Kati, - sewer and :n to occur gear flood desi .gn Inch I tg staff is now taking -` be developed after lying iiii iiiirl_ this month, it _ly hit town .1 War a @ Its banks and J3" p` =Vd, CerIllto-ly @id. The '..it I., [email protected]`w` aW EleVAUOM On a brook for = than . 4--d.7 Re- r Housing, at the siorni v,as far I flood of 1955 wits clasodut I Ife". likely - only - . - H"ev the officially Mild action from abu4t 50 AM real- upaream from the area to show [email protected]'I'W,up. =!dd',`b."r,%' r the place- M%here than the noodof . in a one U, .io W eatim- in Bristol is not debts bass the park's south aide that an extensive drainage [email protected] dr==!fln "ff, [email protected] A reading o1s;.permagnerit a%== = installed -..I years .90 mir t on P buck over N; Qervfluce, said dcpgW enuii wbose, onnea w, ga.uge on the araphasixed that the gauge conam officials and reddr to y" and Of the unigi_ Mr Forestville center, taken milling must be in& steps to prevent a re. said. Leone Wc with the dratio_ P,=.d any prelin. flooding tim,, seek revision, illow First after the recerit flooding. [email protected] hish-watermifing=X =feuce Maud to derive some veaZ:,,.1,eX nai flood deStfraii into agree- ed t trin the storm. age m.lower Tullp and under the federal designation, However, the citys catse foir I he river mched about 3,540 bring taken along the river Hui, Jamb streets that the city may ar ent for the Zb,uh feet per seco d, the river C-tive said. to. recent 10-year City council member John J, have to correct. bi,h became Iffeefile last No. proving the area is safe from si, ed . --it "11,704 cubic flmd estimate I. similar to md. Leone Jr. said be will ask that the vember, the downtown am M verr flooding .old be bun if "I the WPCA fee per secrind Aug, It. 1955, said ings fouxid in other am inbutaur. Public Wotits Board look low the City Officials also Plan W use quires building ow,= to provide prahnninuirY 30-Yisar flood C515- formu a bb-'hael Cervione. a hydrologist in Of the Farmington River. kind of flood control work that the ack o my flooding in the expensive annual ProLectioe thate I, mriq. I a I 117 FLOOD WARNINGS AND EVACUATIONS INTERVIEWS WITH MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS With few exceptions, town officials received little, if any, advance warning of the severe flooding they experienced. In preparing this report, represen- Norwich was the only town to receive tatives from go munlelpalltles were direct notification from the National interviewed (Figure 6.1), as well as Weather Service of the potential for more than 30 State and Federal agencies. major flooding on local streams. A In most cases, the First Selectman or few towns first became aware of the Mayor was initially contacted and asked flood potential through the emergency to identify those individuals most know- warning system, such as NAWAS, NOAA ledgeable about the June floods. In Weather Radio, and notification by OCP, some towns, only the chief elected official police, and fire networks. Most reported was interviewed, but in most cases other receiving no direct warning from an 13 town officials were also interviewed, official saurce , AnJ were aware of including: town manager, police chief, NWS warnings for "small stream and urban fire chief, civil preparedness director, flooding" only through T.V. and radio town engineer (including consulting broadcasts. The "small stream and urban engineers), public works director, and flooding" warning, even when received town clerk. through the emergency warning system, was not considered adequate by local These officials were asked to officials. provide information about the town's experience with the floods: areas flooded; In most towns, officials relied location of major damage areas; emergency upon their knowledge of previous flood actions, including flood warnings and events and observations of stream levels. evacuation; flood recovery; and experiences Their emergency actions were tied to with Federal and State agencies. Responses the level of flooding observed, not varied greatly depending upon the 'extent to projected flood levels. This procedure of flooding and damages the town exper- generally allowed officials to barricade ienced and the individuals involved. flooded roads and provide adequate evacua- Interviews were conducted between April tion warnings to residents, but did and September 1983. A questionnaire not provide sufficient advance warning was developed and used by the interviewer, to permit individuals and businesses but the interview itself was informal, to reduce flood losses by removing or and no one was asked to provide written relocating property from flood prone responses. Information received was areas. Some communities used sandbags generally qualitative rather than quan- to try and keep floodwaters within river tative, and information on every question banks or from entering buildings. Since was not available from each townl2. the worst flooding occurred Saturday Town experiences with the June floods afternoon through Sunday morning, many are summarized in Table 6.1 and discussed businesses were closed and no protective below. action was taken. In some instances, business owners observed the rising waters and took actions based on their previous flooding experiences. In most towns in south central Connecticut, 118 FIGURE 6. 1: MUNICIPALITIES INTERVIEWED 7777 AOA" . . .... .. .. TABLE 6.1: SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL RESPONSES SOURCE OF INITIAL FLOOD WARNINGS National Emergency Communications System Local Observations, Weather (OCP, Police & Fire Fanout; Radio, T.V. Service NAWAS, NOAA Weather Radio) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 Few Most TYPE OF EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN (EOP) USED Flood General No Written EOP, or EOP EOP EOP not Referred to ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 Few Most EMERGENCY ACTIONS TAKEN Evacuation Rescue Erection of Sandbagging Movement of Furnishings, Barricades Equipment, Inventory ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Most Few Most Few Few MAPPING OF FLOODED AREAS AND FLOOD D M GZ6 Delineation of Mapping of No Mapping Flooded Areas Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Few Most RECOVERY APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AFTER DISASTER Complete Nearly Complete Significant Work Remaining (100%) (90-100%) (Less than 90% complete) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Few Most Few TYPE OF RECOVERY WORK REMAINING Roads & Water Control Buildings Public Other Bridges Facilities Utilities (Parks, Landscaping) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Most Few None None Few MUNICIPAL PERCEPTIONS OF FKDERAT/STATZ DISASTER AID PROCEDURES3 Adequate Inadequate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many Many INFORMATION AVAIIABLE FROM MUNICIPALITIES REGARDING FLOOD LOSSES Full Partial None --------------------- ----------------------------------- Municipal Losses All None None ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Private Losses Few Many Many (Residential & Business) I Refers only to municipalities interviewed during preparation of this report (see Figure 6.1). Information on each category not obtained from every town. Few (less than 15); Many (16-45); Most (more than 45). 2 Norwich was the only community with a specific flood emergency plan, and that maintained direct communications with the National Weather Service. 3 S everal communities apparently had emergency operations plans that they did not use during the June 1982 floods. In several cases, one or more of those interviewed were not aware of an emergency plan, even though some type of plan may have existed. 4 This was an unofficial map and was not referenced by town officials during the interview. 5 Refers to the established procedures; not to the actions of individuals. Source: Interviews with officials in 60 Connecticut towns, April-September, 1993. 120 reliance on previous flooding experience FLOOD LOSSES proved misleading. Data on flood losses to municipal Only one town had a fully developed property was readily available, largely flood emergency plan with which all as a result of the Damage Survey Reports emergency personnel were familiar. that towns helped pfepafe in ordef to Many towns apparently did not have written receive reimbursement from Federal and emergency plans; others had plans that State governments. Surprisingly little were not used. Existing emergency plans information was available from town usually did not include provisions for officials regarding damages to houses alerting or assisting residents and and businesses. The officials interviewed businesses with flood loss reduction were often not knowledgeable of the measures. initial estimates provided to OCP immedi- ately aftef the flood. Except for towns that provided tax abatements for property owners, apparently no updated, accurate MAPPING OF FLOODED AREAS estimates of home and business damages were prepared by towns after the flood Despite the record floods that emergency was over. occurred in many locations, towns did little mapping of the flooded areas. Only one town had an unofficial map of the flooded areas, which was not RECOVERY referenced during the interview. When requested to indicate flooded areas At the time of the interviews, on Flood Insurance Rate Maps or street whichwere conductedfrom April toSeptem- maps, the individuals interviewed relied ber 1983, most towns indicated that mostly upon memory to delineate approx- their recovery from the flood was better imate areas of flooding. than 90% complete. Many towns had completed all of their flood repairs, The height of flood waters in but most towns in the hardest hit areas, .vulnerable areas and the sequence of as well as many in areas which received flooding usually were not recorded -- less damage, still had some flood repairs information that would be useful in to make. Most of the remaining repairs developing detailed flood warning and were to roads, bridges and small culverts. evacuation plans. In addition, those interviewed were not always clear as to the cause of flooding: overbank flooding, backwater from blocked or DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROCESS inadequate drainage systems, or torrential runoff. Less than 10 of the towns inter- The towns generally expressed viewed had mapped the areas that suffered satisfaction with the cooperation and damage, even though this information -- assistance they received from FEMA and at least for municipal property -- was OPM. Most, however, were not satisfied readily available. with the time required to receive approval for project applications and payment from FEMA. Several were also dissatisfied with FEMA's decisions on eligible losses. 121 There appeared to be a lack of awareness water supplies were interrupted due by town officials as to how involved to damage to ceftain water mains of the Federal assistance process would the Connecticut Water Company. be and how long the damage documentation, verification, and approval would take. The First Selectman and Fire Chief There also seemed to be confusion on were responsible for emergency actions. the part of some officials as to whether They operated from the fire stations, they were dealing with Federal or State and volunteer firemen performed most representatives during the various stages emergency activities. Chester reported of the Public Assistance procC66, that it received no assistance from OCP and had difficulty obtaining sandbags. Some sandbags were loaned to the Town f rom Westbrook, which had obtained them f rom the National Guard. The Jennings Pond Dam was monitored during the floods by a local consulting engineer who had SUMMARIES FOR SELECTED MUNICIPALMES been conducting a study of it. Since Chester is within 10 miles The flood experiences of several of the Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, it towns are briefly described below, based has an emergency response plan for nuclear on information from interviews, newspaper accidents. However, the First Selectman accounts, and State agencies. For each noted the need for additional emergency town, a map is included that identifies procedures to respond to floods and the major municipal damages. In some provide warnings to residents. During cases, areas of flooding and private the June floods, no formal warning system damages are also shown. The maps were was used; officials relied on visual prepared by working directly with town observations and patrolled the Town, officials or using information supplied alerting people to evacuate. About by them. All flood damages within a 35 families evacuated from the Main town may not be shown on the maps. Street and Deep Hollow areas were sheltered Additional information on flood experiences in the fire station or went to friends' in each of the towns interviewed is homes. located in support files to this report, maintained by the DEP Natural Resources Chester received approval from Center. FEMA for $318,859 in flood losses, and SCS conducted $276,692 in emergency stream improvements at three sites on Pattaconk Brook. The Department of Housing estimated 270 homes received CH R minor damage and 30 major damage at a cost of $1,950,000. The Department Flooding from Pattaconk Brook of Economic Development estimated 20 caused most damages in Chester, including businesses suffered a combined loss five Town and four State bridges. Thou- of over $1,840,000. One year after sands of feet of roadway were washed the flood, recovery was almost complete. out in numerous locations. Several The Town reported some delays in repair businesses suffered major damages, and work were caused by rainy weather in 122 FIGURE 6.2: FLOOD DAMAGES IN THE TOWN OF CHESTER, STORK OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 Moderate damage to bridge; damage to 140 fact of road, t\ Library St. V 7 T6 Extensive damage to bridge and feet of road, Ferry Road N Road and bri dge damage on North Main St. _14 14 0 @,A n a 2 state bridges on 1 Rte. 148 0 ROAD DAMAGE ROAD$ IMPASSABLE Map prepared by Judith A. 13-m.8- [email protected], [email protected] MAJOR botas [email protected] dili& [email protected] REGIONAL bmins Source: Information obtained from town files and SCALE Dnisp di,id, [email protected] SUBRECIONAL [email protected] interviews with town officials WLES [email protected] r baun o.dv nd 8mlh.4 [email protected] fft. Vi.t Note. All areas of flooding and damage may not be shown the spring of 1983. A study of the parking area, the Town beach and park Jennings Pond Dam was still underway. area, and a bulky waste disposal site. (18,35,40,49,52,110,111) FEMA approved flood losses of $222,901, and SCS spent $9,200 removing debris from the Deep River. DOH estimated 120 homes received minor and one house DEEP RIYER major damage at a cost of $620,000. DED estimated three businesses were D e e p River officials indicated damaged with losses of about $1,047,400. that the Town has an elaborate communi- By May 1983, recovery was considered cations system. In addition to Town about 90 percent complete. (18,35,40,49, officials, reportedly about one half 52,112) the town residents use receivers to monitor civil defense and police channels. A public address system, walkie-talkies, and pagers are routinely used, and emer- ESSEX gency call boxes are available. Six dispatchers man the Town communications Essex was probably the town most system. The Town reported its annual severely affected by the June floods. cost for the communications system was Certainly, it suffered the most dramatic about $80,000, compared to a $6,000 flooding when the failure of the Bushy average for surrounding communities. Hill Dam in Deep River sent a wall of water crashing down the Falls River, The First Selectman was in charge causing or contributing to the failure of emergency operations, assisted by of several other dams downstream and the Deep River Police and State Police. devastating the Ivoryton and Centerbrook Additional constables were used to assist sections of Essex. with-traffic control and other emergency services. An initial evacuation notice Town officials received no notifi- was called off because it prompted too cation from OCP or NWS regarding potential much confusion. Residents were aware f looding. They became concerned about of the flood warnings through radio possible flooding because of the prolonged broadcasts and a message delivered by heavy rainfall and communication with the First Selectman over the public employees of the Pratt Read Corporation, address system. Nevertheless, the severity owner of two upstream dams (including of actual flooding was not anticipated. the Bushy Hill Dam) on the Falls River. Saturday night, about 50 people were As water in the river and ponds rose evacuated from Elm Street near the Bushy on Saturday night, Pratt Read employees Hill Dam, which collapsed just after expressed concern for the integrity midnight. Two Deep River firefighters of the dams, and the First Selectman staged a dramatic rescue of 3 people issued a notice about 10:00 pm to begin from a car that plunged into the rampaging evacuating people along the river. Deep River at the Elm Street Bridge. The Essex Volunteer Fire Department headed the evacuation effort and was assisted by the Resident State Trooper Several businesses were damaged, and civil defense unit. About 140 homes and the Town had damages to roads and were located along the Falls River, bridges, fire station equipment and housing about 300 people. Emergency 124 FIGURE 6.3: FLOOD DAMAGES IN THE TOWN OF DEEP RIVER, STOP34 OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 Spring Street Bridge Kajor town street. abutments collapsed, pavement and subbase approaches and sidewalks washout - 75 feet; guardrail and sidewalk washout Road, shoulder, D culvert washout Fill and topsoil washout + Endwall, rip-rap road, fill washout Pavestent, fil Pavement and shoulder topsoil washout A,- % [email protected]%" Hill V_ "W N, 500 feet shoulder and edge of pavement washout; embankment avid subbase washout NJ Dan pavement, subbase. beadvall, rip-rap channel: all damaged and/or washed out k B [email protected]' Town Park access road Hill' Washout % Road, rip-rap. gutter, gu ardrails. pipe washout j N DAWz Map prepared by Judith A. Singer FLOODING Source: Information obtained from town files and SCALE Drainage divide betwecit MAJOR buins interviews with town officials Drainage divide between REGIONAL basins Note: All areas of flooding and damage may not be shown E-1 [email protected] MILES -11110- Drainage divide between SUBREGIONAL boins Lotation of badn outlet and gencraliwd dirmuon of flow at outlet point workers notified most people by going A year after the flood, Essex door-to-door. Others were notified was still not completely recovered. by telephone, and one worker used a Culvert repairs and road resurfacing loudspeaker. Not everyone evacuated, still remained, and one State bridge or was reached by emergency workers had yet to be replaced. The Bushy Hill before the Bushy Hill Dam burst about and Mill Pond Dams were expected to 12:30 am, and many people were stranded be -rebuilt beginning in 1983. All but and had to be rescued. one business had reopened. (18,35,36, 49,52,113,114) (Also see pages 31, Essex had no formal or written 82, and 95.) flood evacuation plan, and did not have information on the innundation area from a dam failure, even though this information had been developed by the EAST HAMPTON Pratt Read Corp. Nevertheless, awareness of the local situation, communication Because East Hampton is located with Pratt Read employees monitoring close to the Yankee Nuclear Power Plant the company's dams, and quick, decisive at Haddam Neck in East Haddam, the Town actions by town officials prevented has an active civil preparedness program. any serious injuries or loss of life. Several emergency warning sirens are located throughout the town and provide All of the dams destroyed in Essex capability for public announcements were privately owned. In sequence, as well as siren warnings. East Hampton the destroyed dams were: Bushy Hill did not find it necessary to use this Dam (located just over the border in warning system during the June floods. Deep River); Clark's Pond Dam (Comstock Two families on low ground near the Dam); Lower Pratt Read Dam; Washburn Salmon River, who had experienced flooding Dami Moore, Grove, and Harper Dam (Mill before, voluntarily evacuated during Pond Dam); and Doane Dam. the storm. Flood waters reached about one foot into the first floor of their Most damages in Essex were to home s. Emergency shelters (schools) private property. DOH estimated 25 designated in the Town emergency operations homes were destroyed, 75 had major damage, plan were not needed. and 500 had minor damage at a cost of $6,250,000. The major business loss Water levels in the Salmon River was to the Pratt Read Corporation, a were monitored by the Town police depart- manufacturer of piano parts, which sus- ment. When water began rising, the tained damages of about $15 million. volunteer fire department sandbagged DED estimated 28 businesses were damaged portions of the river, but had no success with losses of about $22,500,000. Hundreds in containing the floodwaters. The of feet of roadway and several bridges Walnut Avenue Bridge, near the center were destroyed or badly damaged. Essex of East Hampton Village, was also sand- received reimbursement of $396,630 from bagged. Beginning Saturday night, public FEMA and OPM for eligible flood losses. works crews handled emergency drain The SCS conducted $1,106,769 in emergency clearance and debris removal. A record stream improvements at seven sites on height of 14.4 feet (USGS stream gage) the Falls River. was recorded on the Salmon River near State Route 16. Newspaper accounts 126 FIGURE 6.4: FLOOD DAMAGES IN THE TOWN OF ESSEX, STORK OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 Wane Dam, partial dinp Kuralt Dan, gully damage r Valley Shore r ilroad tracks v:shed out f'5 G r ea [email protected],,, vi e a Rte. 9 washout Moore, Grove Harper Dam A /IN Washburn Is Ca Clark's Pond Dam (Comstock Dam) hbed % Cfie @,A 11G,3 Bridge overtopped DAN FAILURE by 7 to 8 ft. of flood waters - ------ DAMAGE Lower Pratt lead Dam Gm FLOODING, Dminage divide between MAJOR basins Drainap divide between REGIONAL basins Drainase divide between SUBREGIONAL basins Location of basin mdet and generalized direction of now at outiet point N Map prepared by Judith A. Singer -T 10/93 Source: Information obtained fro. town files and SCALE interviews with town officials [email protected]@ MILES Note: All areas of flooding and damage may not be shown 127 reported that floodwaters on Route 16 evacuation efforts. At one point, the were deeper than at any time since the boat firemen were using for rescue cap- 1938 hurricane. sized, and the firemen were themselves at risk of drowning. Motels and schools Damages to Town property were were used for emergency shelters. caused by overflow of the Salmon River, rapid runoff from steep slopes, and Several businesses in Higganum undersized culverts and catchba6ins, Center suffered flood losses. DED esti- Reimbursable losses totaled @239,081. mated 18 businesses were damaged with Most damage was to roads and bridges. losses of about $1,367,000. DOH estimated A recreational area was also damaged. 135 homes received minor damage and DOH did not report any housing damages 15 major damage at a cost of 0975,000. in East Hampton, but OCP files indicated Reimbursable damages to the Town of two houses damaged at an estimated cost Haddam were $590,325, mostly for roads of $85,000. DED estimated two businesses and bridges. The SCS conducted $158,860 were damaged with total losses of $55,000. of emergency channel improvements on By August 1983, the Town estimated its Candlewood Hill Brook. A year after recovery was about 90 percent complete. the flood, Haddam estimated that it Although Town officials felt the State was 90 to 95 percent recovered. Fiv e and Federal disaster representatives major projects were completed by the did an excellent job of handling damage spring of 1983, and two projects were assessments, they were not satisfied still in the design stage. All work with FEMA payment procedures -- specifi- was completed by the end of 1983. Town cally with the length of time required officials were not satisfied with the for payment and withholding of the final Federal procedures for approval and 25 percent pending final audit. This payment of flood losses, and felt that process forced the Town to set up a they burdened the town's operating budget. special storm damage account because (18,35,40,116,117) local revenues were not sufficient to cover repair costs. (18,40,49,50,52,115) HAMDEN HADDAM Hamden has an active Office of Civil Preparedness and had recently Major flood damages in Haddam revised its Emergency Operations Plan were caused by Candlewood Hill Brook. when the June floods came. During the Initial awareness of the flood potential floods, the local OCP coordinated town came from town road crews who notified emergency services and maintained commun- the First Selectman of possible problems. ications with State and Federal agencies, Town officials then began patrolling providing information about local damages areas known to be subject to flooding. and requesting needed assistance. The OCP also coordinated emergency shelter Approximately 50 people were evacu- for about 175 people who were evacuated. ated on Saturday night, including evacua- An evacuation center was set up at the tion by boat from the Brookside Mall Miller Senior Center, with Town Hall, apartments and the Glockenspiel Restaurant the Keefe Community Center and the high in Higganum Center. Some people resisted school used for overflow. The Red Cross 129 FIGURE 6.5: FLOOD DAMAGES IN THE TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, STORK OF JUNE 4-7j, 1982 N I Pipe. ..401-is.4 Auoo,%@- [email protected]' -ad & 11:14 -b-t a.-B. D-mift-$. fr- 6Cb"I property Ilu i;,mod -IL p R 11 1, Dirt rold Valbut (JO ti- is JO Pedestrian ".96salk Pip. -d*.-.ix.4 Ground . .... in. S Dirt road eroded, Rap Sired. Sh..Id.r der. loss note idea af rsad Done Rod pl.yi% 1, field 4". NEW Chwstnut load ...h It. .t:d .t:d :h q 2t..P t'ad. Noad woebout around pipe [email protected]; 1. [email protected] lit I; FLOODING ONLY [email protected]@ d- [email protected] MAJOR I- D,@- 4,id, - REGIONAL -. d- - SURREGIONAL 1-- N Kap prepared Py Judith A. Singer Source; Infortnation obtained from town files and SCALE interviews with town officials Q - -A-a=L-j MILES Note: All areas of flooding and damage may not be shown 129 FIGURE 6.6: FLOOD DAMAGES IN THE TOWN OF HADDAM, STORM OFJUNE 4-7, 1982 Bridge Out Dublin Hill Road Scovill Road Bridge D ... I Hill.. ift, Out ,,b,,,, in [email protected] rark Bitumen concrete road washout Out a. _b... &.:' [email protected] ..rf." V .t..t Road A b,idg. -at on, V. Wa:.ho but.of.co crete d..tru.ti.. of r,p-rap A Washout. Quarry Hill Road vasho of road to ut 0 f t depth I "%\I ki 11 tit 'U" S Savace coad cracking Washout 774" -A AT [email protected] Culvert A washout of roadway 4 -base sub Along TurkeySill Road, P ero -I.. A washout I 'b-b ;'btrumm- rate Readwall 4 gravel Toad -about to" wasbout Rrodad ditches A- IridSe Out load -.b- t P-..It Bridge ou Vashout -1 Il'idda rk R We"Out Of Vic-* load and rip_.p Ch ... I V--b6unt @f ..b-b... Ituam. O.Cret. !sAv- Read- Road d @[email protected] ,a e r_.' Impassable N 4M F-Dl- Map prepared by Judith A. Singer DAWAGR Source: Infornuition obtained from towm files and SCALE interviews witb [email protected] officials Dnumv d- [email protected] [email protected] Nubw MIL ES AV staffed the centers after they were roads deemed unsafe for travel. A few opened. OCP coordinated food for both families were evacuated from the upper evacuees and emergency workers. River Road area. Recovery operations on damaged Town roads began on Saturday The Mayor appointed a Recovery by contractors. Management Team to organize the physical, f inancial, and technical aspects of Damages to public property in recovery. Four projects were still Killingworth were all to roads, bridges unfinished as of August 1983, but all and culverts. Damages were caused by repairs to Town property were anticipated overbank flooding, high velocity waters, to be completed by October 1983. Hamden torrential runoff, and undersized and has expressed an interest in an automated debris-blocked drains. The State bridge flood warning system for use on the on Route 80 over the Menunketesuck River Mill River, Belden Brook, and Farm Brook. was completely washed out as were two Town bridges on Birch Mill and Paper The Town reported that by June Mill Roads. The Bunnell Bridge over 1983, it had expended $1.5 million in the Hammonassett River was also damaged. recovery costs. As of December 1983, Major roadway damage occurred on Reservoir FEMA had approved $488,659 in reimbursable Road, Old Deep River Turnpike, Lovers losses. An additional request for $153,780 Lane, Hemlock Drive, and Emmanuel Church had not been acted on by FEMA. Most Road. Total costs approved by FEMA damages were to roads and bridges, and were $198,407, including $2,680 for for reimbursement for time and materials emergency actions. All repairs had during the emergency. In addition, not been completed at the time of the the Department of Police Services suffered interview in June 1983. extensive flood damage and was being remodeled. FHWA provided $182,698 for DOH and DED estimates did not damages to local roads and bridges. include any housing or business damages The SCS conducted $20,825 of emergency for Killingworth, but OCP records showed stream repairs on Belden Brook. DOH Town officials estimated 1,400 homes estimated 1,400 homes received minor received some damage at a cost of $900,000, damage, 400 had major damage and 3 were and ten businesses were damaged at a destroyed, at a cost of $6,120,000. cost of $10,000. (18,40,49,50,52,119,120) DED estimated losses to four businesses at about $2,126,000. (18,35,40,41,49,52, 118) LYME No formal emergency plan was acti- KILLINGWORTH vated during the June floods. The First Selectman, a life-long resident of Lyme, Local officials monitored NWS was also the road foreman, and knew forecasts and warnings throughout the the areas that normally experienced June 4-6 weekend. The First Selectman, flooding. He began to assess the flood Civil Preparedness Director, and fire situation on Saturday night by patrolling department officials patrolled floodprone town roads. areas throughout Saturday to assess flooding conditions and to blockade 131 FIGURE 6.7: FLOOD DAMAGES IN THE TOWN OF HANDENr STORK OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 Recreation trails &be field damaged J @4 jrj.1104; [email protected],I0 % LATE I @[email protected] bridge A road deaung, A Buildial I read dnqo F ra Brook flood Control ?roject (naturally fl-d.d) Police Station damaged Coroner' ial 4 industrial d-S. K-.d-br-k co.dowiniu.. Bank erosion & private property d,"&. Bridge danag, r=-4 W, ?a- doses. Flooding & damage 5.11 field. due to iseuiequatf drainage Bawer puwp station 427r ROAD "ASSOUTS Map prepared by Judith A. Singer 11163 DAKAGR SITES Source: Infor tion obtained from town files and SCALE D-W MAJOR bwm iews with town officials [email protected] RECIONAL hure inter7 9 MILES [email protected]" b- Note: All sees. of flooding and da=ge may not be shown 132 -1 Werstuo di-- .1 n- FIGURE 6.8: FLOOD, DAMAGES IN THE TOWN OF KILLINGWORTH, STORK OF JUNE 4-7,, .1982 Y, A; x. 4 bridge replaced (Birch P.!-t, Post 4 guide Hill bridge) Pt rail repair ra-esmunt 6 at ... I Sub-b-4 daftld 4 ........... . Brids sbut"at Bu 4 dock donne Crg,*l to.d..y dossag. fit T A gl-.l a.b-b.. to" A aub-base 4anne ...... Ae --4 Do. at D- Lk. 4.mg.4 No. bridge & 91.1.1 h--4--Y .... t-ct.d &to 80, State bridge -.h-t Z wi [email protected] rLOODING DAMAGE SITES [email protected] @.MAJOA @m [email protected] N Map prepared by Judith A. Singer 101ff3 Source: Information obtained fr.. tovo files and SCALE [email protected] vith tow, officials + Not*: All areas of flooding and damage may not be show I MILES 133 Thirty volunteer firefighters A previous incident in which two firemen worked throughout the weekend with rescues, lost their lives while attempting a evacuations and warnings to motorists. rescue made the-town sensitive to rescue Volunteer firemen evacuated about 14 efforts by emergency workers. The Senior people from six houses, mainly in the Citizens Center was used as an emergency Hadlyme area. One family refused to shelter, later supplemented by another be evacuated. A Boston Whaler rescue shelter at Foran High School, Rd Cross 6oat was used by the fire department personnel helped operate the shelters. in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue a town resident along the Eight Mile Flooding in Milford was primarily River. The current was too deep and from the Wepawaug River which runs through swift to enable the boat to maneuver the center of town and the Indian River. through the flood waters. Two Lyme The Wepawaug River caused extensive firemen closed off the Salem Bridge damages to businesses on Daniel and on Saturday night, and were themselves River streets, to the City Hall and stranded through the night. One person library, a park north of City Hall, died when the Town truck in which she Milford Harbor, and to several bridges. was a passenger was swept away by Roaring The Indian River damaged two bridges Brook near State Route 82. and caused some business and residential damage. One person drowned in the Indian Despite the evacuations, DOH, R 1V e r. Most businesses reported that DED, and OCP records all show no damages they did not have flood insurance. to homes and businesses in Lyme. The Town's major losses were to roads and The basement of City Hall was bridges, and the loss of the Town truck. flooded almost to the ceiling. Furniture, FEMA approved reimbursable flood losses equipment and records of government for Lyme of $181,993. The SCS conducted offices located in the basement were $21,219 in emergency stream improvements lost, including 34,000 bills for city on Joshua Creek. By April 1983, most taxes on motor vehicles which were ready recovery work was completed except for for mailing. Fortunately, the tax records additional underpinning required for were stored on tape in the data processing one road repair. (18,35,40,49,50,52,121) department at another location. A basement wall cracked and the Fire Chief ordered power shut off and the building not to be used until its structural safety could be determined. The Mayor temporarily MILFORD set up headquarters in police headquarters, and other city offices relocated to As floodwaters began to rise in the old Central Grammar School gymnasium. Milford on Saturday afternoon, City police established blockades at several DOH estimated 540 homes in Milford bridges as a precautionary measure. with minor damage and 60 with major After the downtown area was flooded, damage at a cost of $3,900,000. DED the Mayor declared a state of emergency estimated 57 businesses were damaged and closed off the downtown area. More with losses of over $9,730,000. Milford than 400 people were evacuated from had approved damages by FEMA of about Milf ord. Warnings were provided by $396,879, and as of December 1983 FEMA use of a bull-horn, followed by a siren. was still considering a request for 134 . 1. 11 1 1 - 11 i4 ', I @ I 1 1-1 @1_ I I FIGURE 6.9: FLOOD DAMAGES IN THE TOWN OF LYME, STORK OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 Private property damage (frequent flooding) Road ...bout Arift. -about Streambank v&shmt 3.5 ft. Of flood water. Over road ke Id- 07 io r, P_ jr, --Jt r Al z. M k, po . .... j :,p, '01 1 ,i DEN A I FPARK Cow ir- MANI ST FOOEST R- d ..:ho tb4 48 ft' P iP - . .4 a-, on JO.h..t- Road I d Older damage I to .1: or ng 4houmor.tum Road 70 ft. section of road vs. bed out Bridge Out 941 7 to "'X r _4 Culvert 6 road weesh-t. 4,)r Private property damage N DAIWE FLOODIM Map prepared by Judith A. Singer Source; Information obtained from town files and SCALE @-u -BREG10- - interviews with town officials 0 F-I MILES Note: All areas of flooding and damage may not be shown an additional $9,439. FHWA provided from the local post assisted with the $48,141 for repairs to local roads and distribution of some 7,000 sandbags bridges. Damages to the City Hall and to direct water away from essential Library were covered by a private insurance streets. policy, and the town expected to be reimbursed almost $500,000 in damages The relatively steep topography to the buildings and contents, including of the area caused rapid runoff which the cost of salvaging important land resulted in widespread damage to roads records and other documents. Several and shoulders. FEMA approved $218$079 road and bridge repairs, repair of the in reimbursable flood losses, plus 04,570 dam behind City Hall and dredging of for the Naugatuck Housing Authority. Seven Milford Harbor were still pending in bridges were also damaged by the floods. April 1983. (18,40,41,49,52,122,123) Controversy over FEMA payment for replace- (Also see pages 42 and 94.) ment of these bridges ensued after the Mayor ordered the bridges removed and reconstruction begun before FEMA repre- sentatives had an opportunity to inspect NAUGAIUCK them and determine the extent of damages caused by flooding. OPM worked with Flooding in Naugatuck followed FEMA and the Town to try and reach an Ile a much different pattern than the record agreement on the amount of eligible floods of 1955. At that time the Naugatuck damages. However, as of December 1983, River caused massive destruction, and FEMA had determined'not to provide any as a result of that flood, the Corps financial assistance for the bridges, of Engineers constructed seven flood because the Town had not documented control projects and two local flood flood-related damages to FEMA's satisfac- protection projects to control flooding tion. FHWA provided $29,897 for damages on the Naugatuck. Although the Naugatuck to local roads and bridges. The SCS River overflowed in June 1982, it did conducted $509,504 in emergency stream not present a major problem. Flood improvements on Beacon Hill Brook, Fulling problems in June were caused by smaller Mill Brook, Long Meadow Brook, and Bladen's tributaries to the Naugatuck River. River. As of August 1983, flood recovery was essentially complete, with only The Police Department coordinated some blacktopping and landscaping work emergency efforts during the flooding remaining. DOH estimated 360 homes (Civil Preparedness is under the direction received minor damage and 40 had major of the Police Chief). More than 100 damage at a cost of $2,600,000. DED people were evacuated from the southeast records indicated only one business portion of Town after the Beacon Hill suffered damages with losses of about Brook overflowed and left only one passable $50,000. (18,35,40,41,124,125) bridge out of the area. Evacuations also occurred on Prospect Street in northeast Naugatuck when extensive basement flooding took place. Shelters were NORWICH opened at the City Hill Middle School and at the Salem Lutheran Church, and The City of Norwich is located were staffed by Red Cross and other in an extremely flood prone area. Three volunteers. About 75 National Guardsmen 136 FIGURE 6.10: FLOOD DAMAGES IN THE CITY OF MILFORD, STORK OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 dance. ?I MiL I &d4a bri: road damage Rose's Mill Iridge and Private rg*id*"* Past load flooding Pock Lasse Jridj* ad dwasts I id%e Errant r t an 4bov KsVLQ street Bridge K 0;, F _Y/ Jffig k V111--, Wilk 4. 1 -Aa, Atf Sii% b-sina-s*8 sloes ki's, Street sad Dan i.1 street Library Be, n Milford Varbor ............ . ........ F Ci 7 sell DAbIAGIR FLWDZW [email protected] [email protected] Orl'@P d'@ REGIONAL @= [email protected] [email protected] SUBREGIONAL N Rap prepared by Judith A. Singer Source: Information obtained from town files and SCALE interviews with town officials Note: All areas Of flooding and damage may not be shown E- MILES 137 FIGURE 6.11: FLOOD DAMAGES IN THE TOWN OF NAUGATUCK, STORK OF JUNE 4-7, 1982, -17. 'foe M fili @'v Bridge at Neumann St. Bridge near high school Bridge at Hadley St. Melbourne St. Arch St. Bridge Beacon Valley Road Bridge Schnitz Ave. Bridge Bowman Drive Bridge BRIDGE DAMAGE ROAD AND/OR SHOULDER WASHOUT STREET FLOODING IS DAMAGE SITES Drainage divide [email protected] MAJOR basim Drainage di,id, be-. REGIONAL bmina Drainage dividt beta,een SUBREGIONAL bwim Location of baitin outin and gerieralind dimtion Of now at OU1IeL point N Map prepared by Judith A. Singer Source: Information obtained from town files and SCALE interviews with town officials 0 TZ-:1 MILES Note: All areas of flooding and damage may not be shown 138 rivers -- Quinebaug, Yantic and Shetucket Apartments when propane tanks began converge in Norwich to form the Thames leaking. In the Taftville section, River. Consequently, the City has a volunteer firemen went door-to-door long history of flooding and is very warning residents of the possibility conscious of flood potential. of damage to or failure of the Hopeville Dam. Six trapped families in the Sturte- Norwich has developed an active vant Street area were evacuated by boat civil preparedness program, and at the during a dramatic three-hour rescue. time of the June floods, it had the Another two men, trapped in an auto-parts only Self-Help flood warning system store in the Yantic Flats area, were in the State. This system was activated rescued by a ten-wheel dump truck. on Friday morning after a call from A Red Cross center was established in NERFC alerting the Civil Preparedness the John Moriarity School, and the Salva- Director to the possibility of weekend tion Army also set up an emergency shel- f looding. Local Town officials and ter. residents and business owners in flood prone areas were notified on Friday Many businesses in Norwich received of potential flooding over the weekend. damages. Most of these were concentrated By monitoring rainfall and river levels in three locations along the Yantic in the Yantic River and with the help River: the Shop'-Rite shopping center, of NERFC, the Nor 'wich Civil Prepared- Yantic Flats, and the Norwichtown Mall ness Office was able to make more specific and businesses across the river from forecasts of flood levels and time of the Mall. DED estimated 51 businesses flooding than other towns. Emergency were damaged with total losses of about broadcasts of flood warnings were made $2,596,000. Residential damage was ov e r loc al r adio and TV s t a tions. How ev e r, heavy in the Sturtevant Street area most residents and business owners did behind the Shop- Rite center. DOH estimated not believe that flood waters would 140 homes sustained minor damages and exceed past levels, and their preparations 30 major damages at a cost of $1,000,000. were geared to previous experiences. Serious damage also occurred to the Although some f lood damages were prevented Town owned Uncas Leap Dam and to the by sandbagging and removing or raising Yantic Fire Station. contents, many flood loss reduction efforts proved futile as flood waters FEMA approved $91,680 in eligible exceeded previous levels. City flood losses, and a supplemental request of $8,523 was pending as of Beginning Saturday night, civil December 1983. FHWA provided $8,270 preparedness workers and about 50 National for repair of two bridges over the Yantic Guardsmen sandbagged areas along the River. Since the June floods, Norwich Yantic River. By 1 am Sunday, 10,000 has installed two of a planned series sandbags had been used. Over 100 people of sirens with public address capabilities, were evacuated from low lying areas. added more volunteers to its rainfall Using ten-wheel dump trucks, volunteer data collection network, and expressed firemen and civil preparedness workers interest in an automated flood warning evacuated 75 to 100 people from the system. (12,15,18,40,41,49,52,126) Sturtevant Street area which runs behind (Also see page 22.) the Shop-Rite Mall. Another 30 to 40 people were evacuated from Falls Mills 139 FIGURE 6.12: FLOOD DAMAGES IN THE CITY OF NORWICH, STORK OF JUNE 4-7, 1982 P-ki.g area floded A TE CHAN, jr'o, :Nt YeAt is late area. sati's.s. anatiss, r seentsil -to ti!. d... to- 'Pi3fj USGS gaging statim ------ f I-d.4 Sussity.idt, bridge ftditer-as.. Lee. be." flandig MOn: "[email protected] Want 9 davese at P a t t data street Calvert sad at Starteval't Str at &.ad &.4 ..114, fl-di.1 Cozed. Bridge abatenst Somicbtawn Hall, flooding U ftc.o Iap Van T It. village AP oot i;g parking at fl Pl ry /;,/A me- fladias along Z go'dy ,Oak bout T ?.T _?. T ?.T 4%W PUMP-0VT SITES HEAVY BASEKINT MoDDING NYAYT nocaloc [email protected] bose, bsse N Map prepared by Judith A. Singer Source: WOVIZation obtained from tova files and ialt,[email protected] with tovn officials SCALE Note: All areas of flooding and dSmt&e may not be shown 140 WOODBRIDGE Reservoir properties of the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Author- Emergency activities in Woodbridge ity located in Woodbridge sustained besan about 10 am on Saturday. The the most severe damage of all their local Civil Defense Director and First la-nd holding&. Major Jamages were to Sclecttian directed efforts of the volunteer Lake Dawson ind Lake Glen spillway chan- firem,en and public works department, nels. DOH tecords, indicated no damages who remained on duty trntil Sunday morning. to houses in Woodbridge, but OCP records The Police Department patrolled the indicated Town officials estimated 40 area and set up barricades on impassable homes were damaged at a cost of $20,000. roads. DED estimated 12 businesses were damaged with losses of a*bout $908,000. Town Approximately 70 residents plus files contained damaje statements from a few transients were evacuated, Officials nine homeowners and ten businesses. noted some resistance to evacuation Damage to Town property was relatively and rescue efforts. The Police Station modest, mostly to roads and bridges. and the Senior Center, located in central FEMA approved 032,427 in flood losses. Town Hall area, were used as shelters. By May 1983, all flood repairs had been Twenty people used the shelters Saturday completed. (18,40,49,50,52,127,128) night, while other evacuees stayed with friends and relatives. Town officials noted the lack of a special warning system for flood emergencies and felt that one was needed. During the storm, some of the Town's communication radios were submerged. Officials were aware of the availability of sandbags from OCP, but felt they would be of limited value. During the storm, the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority closely monitored three local reservoirs. The dams and spillways were inspected during and after the storm, and water level measure- ments were taken in the spillways, but water authority personnel noted some difficulty in taking lake level measure- ments in the customary places. As a result, they planned to designate alternate locations for taking lake level measure- ments during storms and installing auto- matic lake level reading devices. They also planned to explore . the possibility of obtaining surplus amphibious vehicles in order to navigate inundated roadways during storms. 141 FIGURE 6.13: FLOOD DAMAGES IN THE TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE, STORK OF JUNE 4-7, 198: Acorn Bill Road Crestview Drive Sanford Road tqp 14),,, Lake Glen spillway channel Z; Lake Dawson spillway channel T ',t6 N, V J West River, Merritt Avenue and business AUT )@Ie, dazaage LI)j, I, T-, DAMAGE Drainage divide between MAJOR basins 'g, Drainage divide betwee. REGIONAL bi. t, Drainage divide between SUBREGIONAL basins j. Location of basin oratlet and genternflized dinxtion of flow at outlet p N /j, ,/j 17,, Map prepared by Judith A. We 3 Source: Information obtained from town files and interviews with town officials SCALE 0 Note: All areas of flooding and damage may not be shown Z-4- I MILES 142 APPENDIX A REFERENCES AND FOOTNOTES REFERENCES I Disaster Survey Re2ort, June 5-7, 1282. Southern New England Flood, National Weather Service, Eastern Region Headquarters. Feb. 1983. 2 Water Resources Conditions in Connecticut June 198.2. U.S. Geological Survey, Hartford, CT. 3 Weather Bureau Technical Papers No. 40 and 49. National Weather Service. 4 Personal communication with David Curtis, Flash Flood Hydrologist, NERFC, Bloomfield, CT, 1/31/83 and subsequent. 5 Personal communication with Tod Mendell, Hydrologist, NERFC, Bloomfield, CT, 9/15/83 and subsequent. 6 Personal communication with Bruce Whyte, Hydrologist, NERFC, Bloomfield, CT, 9/8/83. 7 Personal communication with Charles Smith, Hydrologist In Charge, NERFC, CT, 12/1/83 and subsequent. 8 State of Connecticut Emergency Operations Plane Annex A-2. State Warning Plant CT Office of Civil Preparedness, June 30,, 1982. 9 Personal communication with Sgt. Gerald Bennett, CT State Police, Meriden, CT, 8/30/83. 10 Personal communication with Frank Grandone, Operations Officer, CT Office of Civil Preparedness, Hartford, CT, 5/10/83. 11 Interdepartment Message from Frank Mancuso, State Director, CT Office of Civil Preparedness, to Hugo Thomas, Director, CT, DEP, Natural Resources Center, 12/22/83. 12 Pmonal communication with Rita Ftechette, Norwich Civil Preparedness Direc- tor, Norwich, CT, 8/22/83. 13 State of Connecticut Emergency 02exations Plan; A2pendix 86 Connecticut Warnin& Fanout CT Office of Civil Preparedness, June 1982. 14 Interviews with numerous town officials. 15 Interviews with local business owners in Norwich, CT, 9/22/83. 16 Personal communication with Paul Gibb, CT Office of Civil Preparedness, Hart- ford, CT, 6/3/83 and subsequent. 17 Personal communication with Stuart Mahler, Local Government Program Supervisor, CT Office of Policy and Management, Hartford, CT, 6/1/83 and subsequent. 18 Various newspaper articles. 19 Personal communication with George L. Larned, Transportation Associate Engi- neer, CT Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Highways, Wethersfield, CT, 8/30/83 and subsequent. A-1 20 Various press releases from the Governor's office and various newspaper articles. 21 Personal communication with Charles Berger, Jr., Senior Engineer, CT DEP, Water Resources Unit, Hartford, CT, 9/5/83 and subsequent. 22 Personal communication with Roy Frederickson and Wes Winterbottom, CT DEP, Water Compliance Unit, Hartford, CT, 8/31/83 and subsequent, 23 Personal communication with Ray Jarema, CT Dept. of Health Services, Hartford, CT, 8/29/83. 24 Conneclicut Dam Safety Program Evaluation Re2ort- Executive Summary. Prepared for CT, DEP Water Resources Unit by PRC Harris, Inc., Stamford, CT, February, 1983. 25 Corps of Engineers reports on inspection of Connecticut dams, from DEP Water Resources Unit files, 6/83. 26 Personal communication with Henry Fournier, Director, Food Division, CT Dept. of Consumer Protection, Hartford, 10/19/83 and subsequent. 27 Personal communication with Milton Camielleri, Director, Drug Division, CT Dept. of Consumer Protection, Hartford, 10/19/83 and subsequent. 28 Personal communication with Graham Waldron and Daniel Vece, CT Dept. of Economic Development, Hartford, 5/10/83 and subsequent. 29 Personal communication with Susan Mills, State Disaster Housing Coordinator, and Thomas Santori, CT Dept. of Housing, 6/3/83 and subsequent. 30 Personal communication with James Snell, Director of Disaster Services, American Red Cross, Greater Hartford Chapter, Farmington, CT, 1112183 and subsequent. 31 ReRort to the Governor, Connecticut June Floods. American Red Cross Disaster Services from Lynn Capaldo, Director of Disaster Services, undated. 32 Yankee Clip2ings Vol 6, No. 2, Summer, 1982. The Salvation Army, Southern New England Division, Hartford, CT. 33 "TV Helicopter Rescues Two Men from River", The Milford Citizen, June 7, 1982. 34 "Westport Girl is Rescued After Falling into Torrent", The Norwalk Hour, June 8, 1982. 35 Personal communication with Phillip Renn, Water Resources Coordinator, Soil Conservation Service, Storrs, CT, 3/29/83 and subsequent. 36 Review of Flood Evacuation Efforts in Essex. Connecticut. June 198g. Dr. Toby Kircher, et. al., CT Dept. of Health Services, Epidemiology Section, undated. 37 Governor's Office Press Release, 2 pm, June 9, 1982. 38 Letter to the President from Governor William O'Neill, requesting a major disaster declaration for the State of Connecticut, June 10, 1982. 39 Age, Sex. Location. and Circumstances of Flood-related Deaths in Connecticut- June 1982. Toby Kircher, EIS Officer, CT Dept. of Health Services, Hartford, undated (1983). 40 Listing of status of local and State requests for financial assistance, from Stuart Mahler, CT Office of Policy and Management, 12/31/93. A-2 41 Summary of Damage Survey Reports for the FHWA Emergency Repair Program, provided by Richard 1. Haley, Engineer of Traffic, CT DOT, Bureau of Highways, 10/19/83 and subsequent. 42 Personal communication with Louis Semento, Purchasing Agent, City of Milford, 12/1/83. 43 Damage Survey Reports for CT Dept. of Transportation, CT Office of Policy and Management, Hartford, 12/83. 44 Damage Survey Reports for CT Dept. of Environmental Protection, CT Office of Policy and Management, Hartford, 9/83. 45 Personal communication with Brian Emerick, CT Dept. of Environmental Protection, Hartford, 11/30/83. 46 Personal communication with Mark Ruett and Dave Schreiber, U.S. Agricultural Stabilliozatilon and Conservation Service, Hartford, 1/17/83 and subsequent. 47 Damage Survey Reports for various State agencies, CT Office of Policy and Management, Hartford, 9/83. 48 Personal communication with James Barber, Manager of State and Community Affairs, Amtrak, Washington, D.C., 11/3/83. 49 "Damage Estimates for Flood - Housing Only", CT Dept. of Housing, June 1982, obtained from CT DEP, Natural Resources Center. 50 Summaries of reported flood damages, by counties, CT Office of Civil Preparedness, Hartford, 619182. 51 Letter from John J. Carson, Commissioner, CT DED, to Governor William O'Neill, 6/10/82. 52 Summaries of estimated business losses, by counties and towns, CT Dept. of Economic Development files, Hartford, 6/10/82. 53 Personal communication with Robert Valentine, Facilities Manager, Times Fiber Communications, Inc., Wallingford, CT, 9/13/83. 54 Personal communication with local beverage supplier. 55 Damage Survey Reports for nonprofit organizations, CT Office of Policy and Management, Hartford, 9/83. 56 Personal communication with Kenneth Kells, Connecticut Water Company, Clinton, 8/4/83 and subsequent. 57 Personal communication with Walter Barker, Superintendent of Transmission and Distribution, United Illuminating, New Haven, CT, 2/1/84. 58 Personal communication with Dennis Polio, Northeast Utilities, Hartford, CT, 1/23/84. 59 Personal communication with Mike Gomez, SNET, New Haven, CT, 1/31/84. 60 Personal communication with Victor Galgowski and Wesley Marsh, CT DEP, Water Resources Unit, Hartford, 8/31/83 and subsequent. 61 Files on flood of June 1982, DEP Water Compliance Unit, Hartford, 62 News Release, "Corps Flood Control Projects Prevent Millions of Dollars of Damages." Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA, 8/18/@2. A-3 63 News Release, "Record $236.3 Million Saved by Corps Flood Control Projects.11 Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA, 10122182. 64 Memorandum "Supplement to Reservoir Regulation Bulletin 82-6," from Chief, Water Control Branch to Chief, Engineering Division, Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham MA, 8/5/82. 65 Letter from Governor O'Neill to David Sparks, Regional Director, FEMA, Boston, 6/22/82. 66 Letter from David Sparks, Regional Director, FEMA, Re.gion 1, Boston, to Governor William O'Neill, 7/8/82. 67 Various news releases from FEMA, OCP, and the Governor's office. 68 Personal communication with Sandra Pratt, CT Dept. of Income Maintenance, Hartford, 5/13/83 and subsequent. 69 Governor's Office News Release, 6118182. 70 Governor's Office News Release, 6124182. 71 Connecticut Public Act 82-1 (June Session), July 1982. 71a Connecticut Special Act 83-17 (June Session), June 1983. 72 "State of Connecticut Administrative Plan, Temporary Housing Program", undated. 73 Personal communication with James Silk and Ms. Donahue, FEMA, Disaster Assistance Program, Region 1, Boston, 3/8/83 and subsequent. 74 "Disaster Temporary Housing Program, Phase 11 Scoreboard", CT Dept. of Housing, 9/30/83. 75 "Final Statistical Report", State of CT, Individual and Family Grant Program, 8/23/83. 76 "State Plan for P.L. 93-288, Individual and Family Assistance Grant", CT Dept. of Income Maintenance, June 24, 1982. 77 Personal communication with Carl Jordan, Small Business Administration, Fair Lawn, NJ, 3/30/83 and subsequent. 78 Personal communication with James Conklin, Supervisor of Mortgage Finance Section, CT Dept. of Housing, 10/20/83. 79 Personal communication with Roger Therrien, Research Analyst, Office of Research Information, CT Dept. of Labor, Hartford, 9/9/83 and subsequent. 80 Personal communication with Dr. Joseph Torres, Project H 0 Director and Regional Director, CT Dept. of Mental Health, Region IIi, Norwich, 6/10/83 and subsequent. 81 Personal communication with Mike Rosono, CT Dept. on Aging, Hartford, 8/26/83. 82 Personal communication with Brian Day, Loan Officer, CT Development Authority, Hartford, 9/9/83 and subsequent. 83 Personal communication with Daniel Cash, District Director, Federal Crop Insurance Corp., Willimantic, CT, 9/16/83 and subsequent. 84 Personal communication with Dave Schreiber, Executive Director, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Hartford, 11/22/83 and subsequent. 85 FEMA printouts of flood insurance policies in CT as of 3/31/82, 12/31/82, and 6/30/83. A-4 86 Personal communication with Allan Williams and Cynthia Rummel, CT DEP Natural Resources Center, Hartford, 3/83 and subsequent. 87 FEMA printout of flood insurance claims paid in CT in 1082. 88 Personal communica.tion with Kevin Merli, FEMA, Region 1, Boston, MA, 9/9/83. 89 Personal communication with William Gilluly,- Property Claim Services, Rahway, NJ, 11/2/83. 90 Letter from Anthony Milano, Secretary, CT Office of Policy and Management, to J. Edward Caldwell, Comptroller, 3/31/83. 91 Daily summaries of registrations at Disaster Assistance Centers and Disaster Service Centers, from CT OPM files, Hartford. 92 Tax Information on Disaster, Casualities. And Thefts IRS Publication 547, Revised Nov. 1982. 93 Federal Disaster Assistance Program- Handbook for Applicants, Pursuant to Public Law 93-288, DR&-R-1, FEMA, 1981. 94 Personal communication with Winston Dean, CT Dept. of Transportation, Wethers- field, 9/26/83. 94a "Where do You Throw Away Twenty-Five Houses?" Leslie Bieber, in Citizens' Bulletin Vol. 10, No. 4, 9/82, CT DEP. 95 Damage Survey Report for Town of Madison, CT; CT OPM files, Hartford. 96 Briefing Document on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's and the Small Business Administlation's Adminiltration of Disaster Assistance in the Connecticut Disaster Prepared for Congressman San Gejdenson and Senator Christopher Dodd by the U.S. General Accounting Office,. 12/3/82. 97 Letter from Representative James H. McLaughlin, 68th District, to Anthony V. Milano, Secretary, OPM, 10/12/83. 98 Letter from James H. Lloyd, III, Updike, Kelley, & Spellacy, P.C., Hartford, CT, to Howard G. Rifkin, Deputy Secretary, OPM, 10/21/83. 99 Interagency Flood Hazard Mitigation Report. in Response to the June 14, 198Z Disaster Declaration (FEMA 661-DR-CT) Region I Interagency Flood Hazard Mitigation Team, June 29, 1982. 100 Interagency Post-Flood Progress Report- In Response to the June 14, 198Z Disaster Declaration (FEMA 661-DR-Cn, Region I Interagency Flood Hazard Mitigation Team, October 15, 1982. 101 Section 406 Hazard Mitigation Imnlementation Measures State of Connecticut, August 1983. 102 Connecticut Dam Safety Program Evaluation Re2ort. Executive Summary .. Pre- pared for CT, DEP Water Resources Unit by PRC Harris, Inc., Stamford, CT, February '1983. 103 Letter from John W. Anderson, Dep .ut'y Commissioner, DEP, to Governor O'Neill, 3/2/83, with attached draft legislatio, 'n and background reports prepared by DEP Water Resources Unit. 104 Report on the Flood of June 6, 1982. Yantic and Farm River Watersheds Pre- parcd for the CT DEP Water Resources Unit by Fuss & O'Keill,Inc., Man- chester, CT, January 1983. A-5- 105 Minutes of Federal-State Flood Critique, January 1983. 106 FEMA Region I, Boston, files on Section 1362 program for Connecticut, 10/83. 107 Personal communication with Stan Humphries, FEMA, Region I, Boston, 10/7/83. 108 "Disaster Response Team Report", CT Dept. of Economic Development, Hartford, 9/29/83. 109 Project 0,__H&jp__to Others in Connecticut, Final- Report, 1983. Dr. Joseph M. Torres, et al. 110 Personal communication with Robert J. Blair, First Selectman, Chester, 4/19/83. III Personal communication with Geoffrey L. Jacobson, Consulting Engineer, Nathan L. Jacobson & Assoc., 6129183. 112 Personal communication with Joseph Miezejeski, First Selectman, and Russell B. McNutt, Consulting Engineer, Deep River, 5/19/83. 113 Personal communication with Richard Riggio, First Selectman, Essex, 4/26/83. 114 Personal communication with Fred Radcliffe and William Veillette, Consulting Engineers, Essex, 7/26/83. 115 Personal communication with Allan Bergren, Chief Administrative Officer, and Bob Drewry, Foreman of Roads, East Hampton, 8/11/83. 116 Personal communication with Mark P. Lundgren, First Selectman, Haddam, 4/26/83. 117 Personal communication with Thomas F. Metcalf, Town Engineer, Haddam, 6129183. 118 Personal communication with Walter T. MacDowell, Director of Civil Preparedness & Emergency Medical Services, Hamden, 4/7/83 and subsequent. 119 Personal communication with Horace E. Bruce, First Selectman, Killingworth, 4/12/83. 120 Personal communication with Bernard H. Roth, Chairman, Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission, Killingworth, 7/25/83 and subsequent. 121 Personal communication with Chauncey H. Eno, First Selectman, Lyme, 4/29/83. 122 Personal communication with John K. Donnelly, Public Works Director, Milford, 4/4/83. 123 Personal communication with John R. Casey, City Engineer, and Leon Dolenski, Engineering Dept., Milford, 7/7/83. 124 Personal communication with Frank Rucci, Civil Preparedness Director, Mike Kelly, Superintendent of Public Works, and Frank Shea, Parks and Recreation, Naugatuck, 8/3/83. 125 Personal communication with James Donovan, FEMA Region 1, Boston, MA, 1/3/84. 126 Personal communication with Steve J. Garstka, City Engineer, Norwich, and Stephen Caisse, Fire Chief, Taftville Fire Department, 8/15/83. 127 Personal communication with Russell B. Stoddard, First Selectman, Joseph Kalson, Public Works Director, and Curt LHommedieu, Civil Defense Director, Woodbridge, 5/26/83. 128 Personal communication with Jack Reynolds and Peter Gaewski, South Central Regional Water Authority, 8/24/83. A-6 FOOTNOTES 1 An earlier version of this rainfall distribution map, based on initial rainfall reports and fewer stations, was prepared by the USGS shortly after the storm and has been used in previous reports by USGS and other agencies. 2 An earlier version of this peak flow map, based on preliminary measurements of discharge, was prepared by the USGS shortly after the storm and has been used in previous reports by USGS and other agencies. 3 The NERFC does not normally have a staff hydrologist on duty at the center between 12:00 midnight and 6:00 am. The duty hydrologist was notified at his home and reported immediately to the NERFC offices. 4 Volunteer observers are requested to call in reports every six hours (7am, lpm, 7pm, lam) when rainfall exceeds a certain amount, but reports are not always made for every time period. The 1 am report is often not made. (4) 5 $800,000 is a minimum amount determined by reviewing an OPM summary of applica- tions and approvals. The total difference between loss reimbursement requested and losses approved by FEMA cannot be determined without a detailed review of all applications and supplemental applications. Many supplemental applications include a request for and additional justification for previously denied f unds. 6 Some towns reported only a dollar amount of estimated damages and no number of businesses damaged. 7 DED was provided information on businesses with losses identified during preparation of this report and not found in DED files. DED planned to contact these businesses as part of its program of providing disaster assistance (see Chapter 5). 8 FEMA reported that $319,072 in Disaster Unemployment Assistance had been paid (73). The reason for the difference between FEMA and DOL figures was not determined. 9 FEMA indicated that these claims covered all flooding in CT in 1982, and that probably 99 percent were from the June floods. Some claims may still be outstanding and will be added to the total. (88) 10. Salem joined the NFIP in July 1983. Its participation was scheduled prior to June 1982, but the Town rejected the program. After the floods, when the Town realized that no disaster loans would be available, it voted to join the NFIP. (21) 11 In 1983 the tax codes were revised to make casualty losses deductible only if they exceeded 10 percent of adjusted gross income. A $100 deductible still applies. (92) A-7 12 Study limitations prevented interviews with every town official who could have contributed useful information. Generally, the one or more individuals recommended by the chief elected official were interviewed. Often this was only one person, who did not have all the information desired for this report. Information that may have been available from other individuals within the town was frequently not obtained. 13 Few police and fire officials were interviewed. Local police and fire offices may have received NWS warnings through,NAWAS, NOAA Weather Radio, and OCP, *State Police or county fire fanouts, but those officials interviewed generally did not mention this type of warning. A-8 APPENDIX B U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GAGING STATIONS RECORDINGS OF PEAK FLOWS, JUNE 1982 STATION MAXIMUM DISCHARGE (Ft3/.) / GAGE MIGHT (Ft) -------------------------------------------------------- June 1982 Prior to June 1982 -------------------------------------------------------- Period of Record 1) Outside Period (earliest record of Record PAWCATUCK RIVER BASIN Pendleton Hill Brook near Clarks 6,480 / 6.73* 24,200 / 18.66 Falls 6/5/82 1/21/79 (01118300) (1958) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MYSTIC RIVER BASIN Haleys Brook near Old Mys:Lic2 720 / 5.23* 300 / 4.23 (01118750) 6/5/82 1/25/79 (1962) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ THAMES RIVER BASIN Roaring Brook near Staffordville 2 920 / 4.56* 680 / 4.23 (01119300) 6/5/82 1/25/79 (1960) Conat Brook at West Willington2 138 / 4.76 150 / 4.92 (01119360) 6/5/82 1/25/79 (1964) Willimantic River near Coventry 6,480 / 11.64 24,200 / 18.66 (01119500) 6/6/82 8/19/55 (1931) Hop River near Columbia2 6,940 / 16.72* 6,450 / 16.25 (01120000) 6/6/82 9/21/38 (1933) Mount Hope River near Warrenville 2,720 / 8.85 5,590 / 10.41 14.5 (01121000) 6/6/82 8/19/55 9/38 (1940) Natchaug River at Willimantic 2,710 7.83 32,000 / 16.39 (01122000) 6/10182 9/21/38 (1930) Shetucket River near Willimantic 15,400 / 14.72 52,200 / 27.6 (01122500) 6/6/82 9/21/38 (1928) Merrick Brook near Scotland2 1,020 / 4.88* 850 / 4.60 (01122680) 6/5/82 412/70 (1964) Little River near Hanover 2,450 / B.31* 2,080 / 7.72 (01123000) 6/6/82 1/26/78 (1951) Quinebaug River at Quinebaug 3,010 1 6.71 49,300 / 18.96 (01123000) 6/6/82 8/19/55 (1931) Quinebaug River at West Thompson 2,270 / 6.57 2,690 / 6.99 48,200 20.1 (01124151) 6/10/82 1/29/79 8/19/55 (1966) English Neighborhood Brook at2 1,200 / 7.55* 580 / 5.54 North Woodstock 6/5/82 1/26/78 (01125300) (1962) Muddy Brook at Childs Hill Road 1,330 / 7.51 1,030 / 6.90 2,520 - near Woodstock 6/6/82 1/25/79 3/19/36 (01125415) (1979) B- I STATION MUM= DISCUNI (Ft3/8) / rAcs nicarr (rt) ------------------------------------ - ------------------ Aine 1982 Prior to June 1982 ----------------------------------------------------- Period of Record 1) %taide Period (emliest record of Record Fivemile River at Killingly2 1,380 / 6.16 2,480 / 8.52 (01126000) 6/6/82 7/24/38 (1938) Moosup River at Moosup2 3,040 / 7.12 4,260 1 8.35 (01126500) 6/6/82 3/12/36 (1933) Quinebaug River at Jewett City 17,400 / 19.13 40,700 / 29.0 (01127000) 6/6/82 8/20/55 (1918) Yantic River at Yantic 12,000 /.14.88 13,500 1 14.66 (01127500) 6/6/82 8/20/55 (1930) ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ FOURMILE RIVER BASIN Fourmile River near East Lyme2 1,280 / 9.24* 186 / 4.28 (01127800) 6/5/82 1/21/79 (1961) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN Freshwater Brook near Enfield2 450 / 4.60 3,500 (01183993) 6/6/82 - 8/19/55 (1980) Freshwater Brook at Enfield 575 / 5.05 600 / - (01183994) 6/6/82 2/20/81 (1980) Connecticut River at Thompsonville 64,500 282,000 1 16.6 (01184000) 6/7/82 3/20/36 (1928) Namerick Brook near Warehouse Point2 500 / 5.49 620 / 5.92 (01184260) 6/5/82 12/21/73 (1964) Gillette Brook at Somers2 290 / 5.58 620 / 5.92 (01184300) 6/5/82 9/27/75 (1960) Stony Brook near West Suffield 1,280 / 5.83 830 / 4.82 (01184100) 616182 9/27/75 (1960) Scantic River at Broad Brook2 1,780 j 9.97 13,300 / 19.9 (01184500) 6/7/82 8/19/55 (1929) West Branch Farmington River at 473 10,600 / 12.47 Riverton 6/6/82 10/16/55 (01186000) (1955) Still River at Robertsville 4,110 / 7.57 44,000 / 16.48 (011865,00) 6/5/82 8/19/55 (1948) Hubbard River near West Hartland 1,480 / 7.25 10,500 / 16.5 (01187300) 6/5/82 8/19/55 Nepaug River near Nepaug2 (1938) 1,890 / 6.55 10,000 / - (01187800) 6/6/82 8/19/55 (1922) B-2 ST&TION MAXIM= DISCRARG, (Ft3ls) I CAGZ MGW (yt) -------------------------------------------------------- June 1982 Prior to June 1982 -------------------------------------------------------- Period of Record Outside Period (earliest recordl) of Record Burlington Brook near Burlington 672 / 7.86 1,690 / 9.22 (01188000) 6/5/82 8/19/55 (1931) Farmington River at Unionville 12,800 / 13.85 - 140,000 1 32.9 (01188090) 6/6/82 8/19/55 (1977) Roaring Brook at Unionville2 900 / 3.10 570 / 2.66 (01188100) 6/5/82 2/2/73 (1962) Pequabuck River at Forestville 4,990 / 9.88 11,700 / 13.22 (01189000) 6/5/82 8/19/55 (1941) Stratton Brook near Simsbury 2 390 1 4.01* 290 / 3.30 (01189200) 6/5/82 1/25/79 (1964) Farmington River at Tariffville 14,500 / 10.49 29,900 / 14.0 (01189995) 6/7/82 9/22/38 (1913) Farmington River at Rainbov 19,600 / 11.70 69,200 1 23.5 (01190000) 6/7/82 8/19/55 (1928) Connecticut River at Hartford - 19.65 313,000 / 37.05 (01190070) 6/7/82 3/20/36 (1905) Piper Brook at Nev Britain 656 / 4.45* 300 / - (01190095) 6/8/82 2/20/81 (1980) Piper Brook at Nevington Junction2 1,750 / 9.96 2,400 / 11.62 (01190100) 6/5/82 10/3/79 (1959) Mill Brook at Nevington2 192 / 4.77 460 / 6.70 (01190200) 6/5/82 9/12/60 (1959) North Branch Park River at Hartford 3,270 / 11.86 10,000 / 18.8 (01191000) 616/82 8/19/55 1 (1936) Charter Brook near Crystal Lake 2 340 / 4.32 600 / 4.52 (01191900) 6/5/82 12/21/73 (1965) Hop Brook at Manchester 982 6.08 1,380 / 6.97 (01192480) 6/6/82 1/25/79 (1977) Hockanum River near East Hartford 2,680 / 10.85 5,160 / 13.78 (01192500) 6/6/82 9/21/38 (1919) Shultz Pond Brook at Wev Britain2 135 / 2.78 - 250 (01192690) 6/5/82 - 8/19/55 (1980) Mason Pond Brook at Nev Britain2 415 / 9.66 112 / 2.63 600 (01192691) 615/82 3/3/72 8/19/55 (1971) B-3 STATION MAXIMUM DISCRARGS (Ft3/0) / GAGE HEIGHT (Ft) -------------------------------------------------------- June 1982 Prior to June 1982 -------------------------------------------------------- Period of Record Outside Period (earliest recordl) of Record Willow Brook at New Britain 1,100 / 5.90 850 / - 11500 1 - (01192692) 6/6/82 2/20181 8119/55 (1971) Parmalee Brook near Durham2 517 / 5.76 517 / 5.76 (01192800) 6/5/82 1/21/79 (1960) Coginchaug River at Middlefield 2,110 / 12.23* 1,960 / 6.27 (01192883) 6/6/82 1/25/79 (1961) Connecticut River near Middletown 94,200 1 11.52 177,000 / 30.44 267,000 / 38.20 (01193000) 6/7/82 8/20/55 3/21/36 (1947) Blackledge River near Gilead 2 480 / 5.66* 410 / 5.29 (01193300) 615182 1/25/79 (1960) Salmon River near East Hampton 18,500 / 14.40 12,900 / 12.67 (01193500) 616182 1125179 (1928) Eightmile River at North Plain2 5,800 / 11.12* 2,730 / 8.24 (01194000) 6/6/82 1/21/79 (1938) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ INDIAN RIVER BASIN Indian River near Clinton 2,600 / 8.29 (01195100) 6/6/82 (1981) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ QUINNIPIAC RIVER BASIN Harbor Brook at Westfield Road at 743 / 6.71 1,190 / 5.72 1,180 Meriden 6/5/82 5/16/81 1/25/79 (01196250) (1980) Harbor Brook at Meriden 1,350 / 6.40 933 / 5.11 1,880 / 8.29 (01196259) 6/6/82 7/29/80 1/25/79 (1980) Quinnipiac River at Wallingford 8,200 / 14.02* 5,580 1 12.93 (01196500) 6/6/82 1/25/79 (1930) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MILL RIVER BASIN Mill River near Hamden 5,580 / 9.53 3,180 / 5.65 (01196620) 6/6/82 1/29/79 (1968) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WEPAWAUG RIVER BASIN Wepawaug River at Milford2 5,020 / 9.89* 1,600 / 7.24 (01196700) 6/6/82 1/21/79 (1962) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HOUSATONIC RIVER BASIN Housatonic River at Falls Village 4,070 / 5.97 23,900 / 19.4 (01199000) 6/6/82 1/l/49 (1912) B-4 STATION MAXIMM DISCHARGE M31s) / GAGE BRIGHT (Ft) -------------------------------------------------------- June 1982 Prior to June 1982 -------------------------------------------------------- Period of Record Outside Period (earliest recordl) of Record Salmon Creek at Lime Rock 302 / 4.08 1,840 / 5.90 6,300 / 13.5 (01199050) 6/6/82 3/6/79 8/19/55 (1961) Tenmile River near Caylordsville 2,970 / 6.10 17,400 / 14.90 (01200000) 6/7/82 8/19/55 (1929) Housatonic River at Gaylordeville 8,050 / 7.82 37,000 / 14.5 (01200500) 6/7/82 9/22/38 (1900) Still River at Lanesville2 2,240 / 6.28 7,890 / 14.11 (01201510) 6/6/82 10/16/55 (1932) Butternut Brook near Litchfield2 860 / 6.26 630 / 7.91 (01202700) 6/5/82 2/2/73 (1960) Shepaug River near Roxbury2 4,680 / 8.45 50,300 / 17.2 (01203000) 6/5/82 8/19/55 (1931) Jacks Brook near Roxbury Falle2 1,030 / 5.93 1,600 / 7.82 (01203100) 6/5/82 9/26/75 (1961) Pootatuck River at Sandy Hook2 2,340 / 8.09 2,720 / 8.47 (01203510) 6/6/82 1/25/79 (1966) Wood Creek near Bethlehem2 390-/ 3.90 600 / 4.61 (01203700) 6/5/82 9/26/75 (1962) Pomperaug River at Southbury 7,880 / 14.18 29,400 1 21.8 (01204000) 6/5/82 8/19/55 (1932) Housatonic River at Stevenson 34,000 16.57 75,800 / 24.50 (01205500 6/6/82 10/16/55 (1928) West Branch Naugatuck River at 2,220 / 5.51 8,820 / 7.46 11,900 Torrington 6/5/82 9/26/75 8/19/55 (01205600) (1956) East Branch Naugatuck River at 176 1,500 / 4.85 6,200 Torrington 6/6/82 8/5/69 8/19/55 (01205700) (1956) Leadmine Brook near Harwintou2 1,980 / 9.26 2,130 / 9.63 (01206400) 6/5/82 3/21/80 (1959) Naugatuck River at Thomaston 3,130 / 5.25 5,140 / 6.25 53,400 / 27.0 (01206900) 6/8/82 3/31/60 8/19/55 (1959) Branch Brook near Thomaston 805.1 4.07* 795 / 4.05 (01208013) 6/8/82 9/28/75 (1971) Hop Brook near Naugatuck 397 905 / 4.71 2,650 (01208420) 6/8/82 2/l/82 8/19/55 (1967) Naugatuck River at Beacon Falls 15,600 / 12.95 26,000 / 14.0 (01208500) 6/5/82 ll/-/ 27 (1918) B-5 STATION NAXIMN DISCHARGR (Ft 3/0) / GAGE BRIGHT (Ft) -------------------------------------------------------- june 1982 Prior to June 1982 -------------------------------------------------------- Period of R cord Outside Period (earliest r:cordl) of Record Little River at Oxford2 11350 1 6.47 1,000 16.62 (01208700) 6/5/82 1/25/79 (1960) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PEQUONNOCK RIVER BASIN Pequonnock River at Trumbu112 1,850 1 7.64 2,100 / 8.29 4,500 (01208850) 6/5/82 4/10/80 10/16/55 (1962) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ROOSTER RIVER BASIN Rooster River at Fairfield 2,070 / 11.49 2,170 / 11.65 (01208873) 6/5/82 4/9/80 (1977) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MILL RIVER BASIN Patterson Brook near Easton2 148 / 8.33* 128 / 7.28 (01208900) 6/5/82 4/18/80 (1960) Mill River near Fairfield 1,710 / 7.00 1,800 / 7.15 (01208925) 6/5/82 4/10/80 (1972) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SASCO BROOK BASIN Sasco Brook near Southport 798 / 5.22 1,640 / 7.00 (01208950) 6/5/82 6/19/72 (1964) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SAUGATUCK RIVER BASIN Saugatuck River near Redding 825 / 4.45 2,160 / 5.88 (01208990) 6/5/82 3/25/69 (1964) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NORWALK, RIVER BASIN Norwalk River at South Wilton 1,400 / 4.43 2,890 / 6.27 - 1 13.5 (01209700) 6/5/82 4/10180 10/-/55 (1964) Betts Pond Brook at Norwalk 250 / 3.05* 288 / 2.96 (01209753) 6/5182 4/10/80 (1980) Keelers Brook at Norwalk 83 / 2.53 265 / 4.00 (01209775) 6/5/82 4/10/80 (1980) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RIPPOWAM RIVER BASIN Rippowam River near Stamford 504 / 4.11 1,890 / 6.56 (01209901) 6/6/82 4/10/80 (1975) 1 Refer to sources listed below for details on period of record, including partial records and breaks in records. 2Crest-stage, partial-record stations. Only stations that registered the 1982 peak discharge during the June storm are included. indicates new peak discharge. Source: Water Resources Data, Connecticut. Water Year 1982, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report CT-82-1; Water Resources Data. Connecticut, Water Year 1981 ' U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report CT-81-1; and L.A. Weiss, USGS, Hartford, Ct. B-6 APPENDIX C REQUEST FOR MAJOR DISASTER DECLARATION VRUMM & 01AXIL STATE Oil CONNECTICUT EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS HARTFORO June 10, 1982 The President The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Mr. President: Under the provisions of section 301 (b), Public Law 93-288, as implemented. by 44 CFR 205.41, 1 request that you declare a major disaster for the State of Connecticut as a result of a $evere storm and flooding which occurred between June 4 and June 7, 1982 in the counties of Fairfield, New Haven, Middlesex, New London, Litchfield, Hartford, Tolland and Windham. At approximately 8:00 P.M. on June 4, 1982 heavy rains began falling throughout the state and reached record rates of 5.88 inches during the first 24 hours of the storm. Rain continued throughout the day on June 5, 6 and 7 with over 11 inches having fallen In some areas of the state by June 7. There has been no flooding comparable to this in Connecticut since 1955. The amount and severity of disaster related damages are broken down by type, and preliminary estimates follow: Private non-agricultural $204,691,000 Agricultural 2,500,000 Public (State or Local Government) 69,491,000 Total 276,682,000 As the result of the situation, I directed execution of the state emergency plan on June 5, and declared a statewide emergency on June 6. 1 have also directed that all appropriate action be taken under state law. I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the state and affected local governments and that supplementary federal assistance is necessary. Preliminary estimates of the nature and extent of Federal assistance needed under PL-93-288, as amended are tabulated in Enclosures A and B. Estimated requirements for Federal assistance from certain Federal agencies under other statutory authorities are tabulated in Enclosure C. The following information is furnished on the extent and nature of state resources which have been or will be used to alleviate the conditions of this disaster: C-1 The President Page 2 The President Page 3 June 10, 1982 June 10, 1982 1 intend to call a special session of the General Assembly on June 28, 1982 The State Police have closed appropriate roads, assisted in directing at which timL- I will recommend legislative authority to pay, through bonding evacuations, restricted access to dangerous areas. and are assisting in not only the state's 25 percent share of its public loss. but also to reimburse search and rescue operations. our cities and towns their 25 percent share of losses to publicly owned facilities affected by this disaster. The National Guard has opened armories for use as shelters, assisted in In addition, I will recommend programs and funding to assist severely evacuations, performed sandbagging operations and traffic control, towed affected homeowners and businesses. stranded vehicles, provided drinking water and enforced curfews. The Department of Environmental Protection has inspected dams throughout I have desi 91 nated Frank Mancuso as the State Coordinating Officer for this request. He wil work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in damage the state, advised on their conditions and assessed damages to these assessments and may provide further information or justification on my behalf. facilities. The Department of Transportation has inspected state roads and bridges, cerely, assessed damages to these facilities and provided advisement on their safety. The Department has also provided thousands of sandbags to local ZVei I governments and is performing extensive emergency repairs on state roads Governor and bridges throughout the affected areas. Enclosures Several other state agencies are performing damage assessments including the Departments of Economic Developmentg Consumer Protection. Civil Preparedness, Agriculture and Housing. These assessments encompass damage to residential, agricultural and business/industrial property. The Department of Health Services is publicizing flood-related safety precautions and analyzing water samples. More information on state resources committed to alleviate this disaster can be found in the attached Supplementary Justification. I intend to implement the Individual and Family Grant Program as described in the enclosure. I certify that the state is unable to immediately pay its 25 percent share of the cost to implement the program and request that $250,000 be advanced by the Federal Goverment. In order to repay this advance, I will request the legislature to appropriate the necessary funds at the beginning of the next regular legislative session. I certify that the advance will be repaid as soon as funds become available; I anticipate that funds will become available by March, 1983. Pursuant to Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations, I certify that total expenditures and obligations for this major disaster for which no Federal reimbursement will be requested are expected to exceed $17,373,000 in accordance with the table In Enclosure D. ESTIMATED REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE PL 93-289 County Ten. Hig. IFG DUA Other 0 $ New Haven #173 #200 ssw,ow 4150 $360,000 N/K Middlesex #40 #100 $250,000 #150 $360,000 New London #13 0 so $125,000 1150 $360.000 Fairfield f7 f 50 $125.000 050 $360.000 Hartford #2 N/K N/K N/K Litchfield 10 Tolland 10 Windham fI Total% 236 400 I.ODO,000 1,440,000 Tem Hsg a Temporary Housing IFS - Individual and Family Grant DUA , Disaster Unemployment Assistance NIK - Not known ENCLOSURE A ESTIMATED REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PL 93-289 (In Millions) County Category or PNP A 8 C 0 E F G I Total* New Haven S .61 17.5 NIK 3.2 1.5 N/K .3 2.5 26.11 Middlesex .5 .61 20.5 .19 .97 .2 .04 .5 23.51 New London .6 .61 12.S .8 .38 .52 .02 .12 15.45 Fairfield .5 .61 1.2 N/K .02 .05 .02 .05 2.45 Hartford N/K N/K .6 N/K .24 .37 .01 .4 1.62 Litchfield 1.1 .5 .01 .03 N/K .01 1.65 Tolland 1.1 N/K .03 .01 N/K .2 1.16 Windham 2.0 .21 .01 N/K .62 N/K 2.84 *Estimlt*s are to reflect total eligible costs before any cost sharing. PNP w Private. non-profit N/K - Not known at this time Not expected to be significant ENCLOSURE 9 C- 3 ESTIMATED REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS SBA SBA DOE HOME BUSINESS FHHA SCHOOL COUNTY LOANS LOANS LOANS ASCS SCS FHWA GRANTS COE OTHER Middlesex 110.091 0186 a Ion 900.000 00.000 n/k n/k n/k n/k $9,581.000 $152,000 New Haven #11,260 f377 @ Ion $S00,000 $250,000 n/k n/k n1k n1k $79.447,000 S152.ODO New London 1660 138 0 100 $S00,000 $250,000 n/k n/k n1k n/k $4,950,000 $152,000 Fairfield 01,120 #30 @ 100 $50D.000 $250,000 n/k n/k n/k n/k $6,952,000 $152,000 Hartford #38 050 V 100 ft/k n/k n/k n/k n/k n/k $341.D00 $152.000 Tolland n/k 07 9 so n/k n/k n/k n/k n/k n/k $152,000 Windham #1 05 @ so n/k n/k n/k n/k n/k n/k $22,000 $152,000 Litchfield n/k 030 @ $152.000 25 n/k n/k n/k n/k n/k n/k TOTALS #14.179 0700 625 $2,000.000 $1,000,000 n/k n/k n/k n/k $101,293,500 $107.000,000 ENCLOSURE C n/k - not known at this time C-4 GOVERNOR'S CERTIFICATION SUPPLEMENTARY JUSTIFICATION I certify that for this current disaster, State and local government expenditures STATE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT and obligations will constitute a reasonable amount of the funds of such State and 1. Background local governments for alleviating the damage, loss. hardship or suffering resulting from such disaster. As stated in my basic letter, and based on information avail- The communities affected by this disaster are economically diverse in able at this time, tabulation of these estimated total expenditures and obligations, terms of unemployment rates and median household income levels. for which no Federal reimbursement will be requested, follows: Several ofthe affected communities have unemployment rates in excess of the national average including Naugatuck (10.4%), Seymour (10.2%). Ansonia (10.6%), Bridgeport (10.8%) and Bozrah (10.7%). Other affected communities have high unemployment rates, though not in excess of the Category of Assistance Amount national average, including Derby (8.4%), West Haven (8.0%), Norwich State Local (8 .0%), Wallingford (9.0%) and Oxford (9.0%).* Individual Assistance: Agricultural interests in Con necticut have already suffered setbacks this year including a blizzard in April and three weeks of dry weather Housing $ $ which has delayed germination of corn seed. The recent flooding will Individual &'Pamily Grants 250,000 undoubtedly prove a severe blow to this group. Previous experience in Connecticut has shown that anything other than Mass Care routine flooding tends to affect numbers of residences and businesses without flood insurance. According to state insurance officials, this Other (specify) will hold true for the current disaster and will result in a large Total uninsured loss margin for both of these groups. Public Assistance: II. Impacts Category A - Debris Clearance P;U-non 250,000 A. Effects On People 212,750 400,000 At this time there are ten confirmed flood related deaths and a number Category B -Protective Measures of flood related injuries. Flood waters have forced the evacuation of approximately 1,300 residents causing the opening of shelters in 21 Category C -Road Systems [email protected]?110.000 10,875,000 communities. As of June 8, shelters were open in 2 communities providing care for 27 evacuees. Category D -Water Control Facilities 475,000 0 Present assessments indicate that 37 homes have been destroyed, that Category E -Public Buildings and 1,538 have sustained significant damage and that perhaps 15,574 have been Related Equipment 199,250 1,065,250 affected. It is likely additional homes have been destroyed or damaged but not discovered by damage assessors because of washed out roads and Category F -Public Utilities 0 601,500 bridges which have made some areas inaccessible. It is anticipated there will be a need for temporary housing assistance primarily in Category G -Facilities Under Construction 0 0 Middlesex and New Haven counties as well as unemployment assistance for Category H -Private, Nonprofit Facilities 0 0 those whose places of employment have been damaged or destroyed. There has been widespread disruption of public and private utility Category I -Other (not in above categories) 400,000 506,750 services and this continues to be a problem in several affected areas. Total 4-787-000 13-69RA00 Other: NATIONAL GUARD 90,000 Total *Based on April 1982 unemployment figures. Grand Total 5,127,000 13,698,500 ENCLOSURE D - 2 - - 3 - B. Significant Effects on State and Local Governments D. Significant Effects On Businesses State and local governments face severe financial hardships There has been extensive damage to businesses as a result of the because of the many road and bridge washouts which have occurred. There weekend flooding. Our estimates indicate that over 600 business establish- has also been serious damage to state parks and some municipal buildings. ments suffered substantial damage to building structures, machinery and An estimated 70 stretches of state highway have been destroyed as have inventories, as well as experiencing unreported and continuing business some 13 state bridges. Rail service along the entire shoreline was knocked interruption losses. Financial assistance for business recovery could out by a catenary tower failure and 12 major washouts. require in excess of $100 million. It is expected that over 1,000 people will be without jobs for an extended period of time. As of this morning. Approximately four sewage treatment plants are in need of extensive 293 unemployment claims had been filed with the Connecticut Department of repair. An additional 14 plants were damaged less severely. Approximately Labor. At this time, major business losses appear to be centered in the 25 town bridges have been destroyed or damaged. Essex, Milford, New Haven areas and the City of Waterbury. The State Department of Economic Development will continue to assess business Two communities have reported loss of vital records due to flooding losses and needs. of municipal buildings. The $1.8 billion Connecticut tourism industry will be impacted High water, exposure of sewer pipes, power outages, by required closings of state facilities and inaccessability to contaminated wells, isolation of some areas, road/bridge washouts, private and public facilities due to road related problems. Known disruption of water supplies are responsible for continuing and damage to tourism facilities has been accounted for in the total significant public health and safety problems. This is particularly business sector report. true In the communities of Essex, Hamden, East Lyme, Deep River. Cheshire and Chester. The State Department of Environmental Protection 111. State and Local Response has warned against swimming and other recreational uses of rivers due to sewage which has been washed into them. A. State The extreme property loss in Essex will undoubtedly have a long-range The following state agencies have responded to this emergency adverse effect on that community's tax base. with the equipment and personnel listed below: C. Significant Effects on Agriculture State Police: Personnel It is estimated that millions of dollars worth of damage has been done All Onormal" patrol territories were staffed with State Police to crops in Connecticut as a result of the flooding. Crops affected include personnel. This amounted to 75 patrols X 3 shifts or 225 patrolmen. tobacco. corn, cabbage. tomatoes, broccoli, brussel sprouts and beans. An additional 2,192 overtime hours were also spent above these normal Harvesting of hay has been delayed. serious soil erosion has occurred, and patrols. supplies of fertilizers and pesticides have been destroyed. It is also believed that the rains and flooding have resulted in crucial nitrogen These above figures do not include the regular and overtime loss from the soil. Many full and part-time farm workers will be denied hours spent by Resident SURTeTroopers in the affected localities. employment opportunity. State Police: Equipment Agricultural damage appears to be most severe in Hartford, New Haven and Middlesex counties. Beyond personnel resources, the following material was committed to the flooding, traffic control and evacuation activities: 4 - 5 - I . The State Police established two (2) Command Posts (Essex and State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP): Personnel Westbrook) to coordinate police operations. Additionally, they :Zlped staff the Office of Civil Preparedness Main Command Center DEP has estimated that 108 people have worked on regular and the State Armory, Hartford. overtime in this emergency. 2. State Police radio and teleprocessing services were used to DEN Equipment coordinate operations and exchange information. In addition to personnel. DEP has committed 62 passenger vehicles, 3. From the Emergency Services Unit: 4 bucket loaders, 12 boats and I dump truck. a. 161 boat State Health Department: Personnel b. 191 boat c. 4-wheel drive Broncos The Health Department ssi ned 24 people to this emergency d. emergency lighting equipment situation between June 5th :nd Kne 8th. These personnel included staff from the Disease Prevention, Hospital Medical Care and Office Department of Transportation (DOT):- Personnel of Emergency Medical Services. The State Department of Transportation estimates that 1,500 Health Department: Equipment employees were used between the period of June 5 to June 8. 1982. To assist the above personnel, the Health Department assigned Department of Transportation: Equipment 10 motor vehicles and one set of special radio equipment. To assist the above DOT personnel. some 600 state trucks and State Housing Department: Personnel 100 payloaders and other heavy equipment were used. The State Housing Department estimates that 35 of Its staff In addition to state owned resources, some $40.000 worth of rental worked on this flooding emergency from June 5th to June 8th, 1982. equipment. materials and services were used in highway and bridge work. Finergency contracts were awarded to remove failed bridges from the Housing Department: Equipment streams. It is estimated that 15 state vehicles assigned to this In the area of public transportation, 28 charter buses were used department are being used in this emergency. as a substitute to washed out rail service. State Office of Policy & Man agement (OPM): Personnel State Department of Consumer Protection: Personnel This state agency is responsible for inspecting and securing The I;tergovernmental Relations Division of OPM committed various food establishments and pharmacies that may have been damaged fifteen (I ) staff members for a total of 120 man-hours toward the or otherwise affected by this emergency. emergency. The Food Inspection Unit assigned 17 personnel to make inspections State Office of Policy & Management (OPM): Equipment of food establishments in the period between June Sth and June 8th, 1982. Fourteen (14) state vehicles are being used by the above personnel Consumer Protection: Equipment In this emergency service. Some IS state vehicles are being used by both the drug and food enforcement units. - 6 - Department of Administrative Services Bureau of Public Works: Personnel The Bureau of Public Works has assigned 30 staff personnel to inspect damage to state owned buildings throughout the state. Bureau of Public Works: Equipment At least 3 state vehicles were used during the height of the storm for building inspection. One new sump pump was purchased and one sump pump was rented. Economic Development: Personnel Fourteen (14) economic development specialists and 4 administrative staff have been assigned to assist both small and large businesses throughout the affected area. Economic Development: Equipment Sixteen (16) state vehicles are assigned to the above staff. National Guard: Personnel Two hundred fifty-four (254) National Guardsmen were activated to assist state and local governments during the emergency. National Guard: Equipment At least 3 helicopters and 11 water trucks were used during the emergency. State personnel and equipment from all of the above agencies continue to be used in response to this emergency. Some state monies may be available for use in this emergency from the Governor's Contingency Fund and the Emergency Repair Fund for Roads and Bridges (13al75J). B. Local Response It is estimated that 6,707 local employees and 1,122 pieces of local equipment were committed to this emergency. C-8 APPENDIX D FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO TOWNS AND STATE AGENCIES BY FEMA AND OPM FEMA Town Applicants Amount Approved Approved State Advanced Total Date Remainder Agency Requested by State by FEMA Paid by FEMA Paid Paid FEMA ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------ ---------- Ansonia 110,926 109,581 109,581 27,395 61,639 89,034 091382 20,547 Ansonia (Sup.fl) 46,119 45,405 45,405 11,351 25,540 36,891 041883 8,514 Beacon Falls 24,817 24,817 24,817 6,204 18,613 24,8117 090982 0 Be"hanv 33,636 33,636 33,636 8,409 18,920 27,329 090182 6,307 Bethany (Sup.#J) 4,085 4,085 4,085 1,021 2,298 3,319 021583 766 Br-,zrah 15,250 15,250 14,756 3,689 11,067 14,756 1104S2 0 Bran,ford 109,339 88,237 88,1159 22,040 49,589 71,629 090182 16,530 Branford (5up.#I) 515ii 5,511 5,511 1,378 3,100 4,478 051283 ',033 Bridgeport 101,405 101,405 101,405 25,3S1 S7,041 92,192 161492 IM11 Cheshire 310,071 100,904 100,904 25,226 56,759 81,985 101462 18,919 Cheshire (Sup.01) 222,314 222,314 222,111-4 55,579 125,052 180,631 120882 41:683 Chester 285,157 285,157 274,741 68,685 154,542 223,227 1014S2 51,51-4 C11hester (Sup.41) 28,691 28,691 28,691 7,173 16,139 23,312 040783 5,379 Cheater (Sup.#2) 15,427 15,427 15,427 3,857 8,678 12,535 082283 2,992 Clinton 60,598 60,596 60,597 15,149 34,086 49,235 101482 11,362 Clinton (Sup.fl) 70,198 70,198 70,198 17,549 39,486 57,035 081583 13,--63 Cc Ichester-Town 117,327 88,621 88,621 22,155 49,849 72,004 091382 16,617 1-c.Ichester.-T (Sup.#1) 26,304 26,304 26,304 6,576 14,796 2!,372 041573 4,932 Colchester-T (Sup.i2) 15,164 15,164 15,164 3,791 8,530 12,321 041583 2,843 Colchester-Borough 13,323 4,771 4,771 1,193 3,578 4,771 100482 0 Colchester-B (Sup.#l) 7,228 7,228 7,228 1,807 5,421 7,228 040783 0 Danbury 20,820 20,820 20,820 5,205 15,615 20,820 101482 0 Deop River 213,096 213,096 219,231 54,808 106,027 160,835 091332 58,396 [email protected]; River (Sup.#l) 3,670 3,670 3,670 917 2,064 2,981 082283 689 Derby D 84,743 84,743 89,906 22,477 50,572 73,049 102282 16,857 Derby (Sup.11) 1,344 1,344 Durhan 23,321 21,667 22,995 5,749 17,246 22,995 121082 0 East Haddam 413,815 413,815 413,815 103,454 232,771 336,225 100482 77,590 East Haddam (Sup.#1) 21,946 21,946 21,946 5,486 12,352 17,838 Oe2283 4,108 East Hampton 182,663 182,663 182,663 45,666 102,748 148,414 100482 34,249 East Hampton (Sup.#l) 16,384 16,384 16,384 4,096 9,216 13,312 0415S3 3,072 East Hampton (Sup.#2) 40,034 40,034 40,034 10,008 22,519 32,527 082283 7,507 East Haven 88,726 86,329 8G,329 21,582 48,560 70,142 091382 16,187 East Haven (Sup.#l) 38,008 38,008 38,008 9,502 21,380 30,882 121782 7,126 East Haven (Sup.#2) 97,032 97,032 97,032 214,258 54,580 78,838 051283 18,194 East Lyme 155,632 146F751 146,751 36,688 82,547 119,235 113082 27,516 East Lyme (Sup.11) 26,069 26,069 26,069 6,517 14,664 21,181-081283 4,888 East Lyme (Sup.#2) 27,126 27,126 Easton 10,108 10,108 10,108 2,527 7,581 10,10a 1044d2 0 Essex 391,140 391,140 391,140 97,785 220,016 317,801 100482 73,339 Essex (Sup.il) 5,490 5,490 5,490 1,372 3,088 4,460 082283 1,030 Franklin 8,468 B,468 8,468 2,117 6,351 8,468 090182 0 Franklin (Sup.#l) 2,800 2,800 2,800 700 2,100 2,800 092383 0 Groton - Citv of 130,709 79,051 79,051 19,763 44,466 64,229 102282 14,P22 Groton - Town 45,522 35,932 35,932 8,983 20,212 29,19S 090982 6,737 Groton - Town(Sup.#l) 5,222 5,222 5,222 1,306 2,937 4,243 051283 979 Guilford 150,484 144,135 144,135 36,034 81,076 117,110 100482 27,025 ou--*)ford (Sup.#l) 3,173 3,173 3,173 793 1,785 2,578 042883 595 Haezam 699,026 495,331 430,343 107,586 242,068 349,654 113082 80,689 Haddam, (Sup.#I) 23,909 23,909 23,909 5,977 13,449 19,426 043783 4,483 Faddam (Sup.42) 136,073 136,073 136,073 -*34,081 76,541 110,622 092283 25,451 Haddam (Sup.03) 9,408 9,408 namden 845,369 427,327 427,327 106,832 240,371 347,203 102282 80,124 Hamden (Sup.#l) 41,430 41,087 41,087 10,272 23,111 33,383 030183 7,704 iia,r-.-den (Sup.#2) 93,884 20,245 20,245 5,061 11,388 16f449 081183 31796 la.,@den (Sup.#3) 153,780 153,780 @ilii.g ... th 198,407 198,407 198,407 49,602 111,604 161,206 092482 37,201 Lebanon 20,911 20,911 20,911 5,228 15,683 20,911 113082 0 D-1 Amount Approved Approved State Advanced Total Pate Rerainder Agency Requested by State by FEMA Paid by FEMA Paid Paid FFMA ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------ ---------- Ledyard 59,944 56,744 55,844 13,961 JIf412 45073 120982 10,471 T..,',qhon 3,091 3,091 3,091 773 2,318 3,091 120282 0 Lvne 174,593 174,593 171,100 42,775 96,244 139,019 101482 32,081 Lyne (Sup.#I) 10,893 10,893 10,893 2,723 6,127 8,850 0415R3 2,043 Mad ison 36,672 26,589 1,111 278 833 1,111 120982 0 Madison (Sup.#1 Flex) 30,281 30,281 27,252 6,813 15,330 22,143 030283 5,109 Mattabassett District 11,262 11,085 ll,()85 2,771 8,314 11,085 100782 0 veriden 29,149 29,149 29,149 7,287 16,397 23,684 102282 5,465 Meriden (Sup.#l) 6,143 6,143 6,143 1,536 3,455 4,991 031583 1,152 Middlebury 42,164 41,658 41,658 10,415 23,433 33,848 102282 7,810 Middlebury (Sup.#l) 49,067 49,067 49,067 12,267 27,600 39,867 041583 9,200 Middlefield 18,593 18,593 18,593 4,648 13,945 18,593 090982 0 Middletown 125,578 121,854 121,854 30,463 68,543 99,006 113082 22,848 Middletown (Sup.#I) 17,753 17,753 17,753 4,438 9,986 14,424 041583 3,329 Milford 488,865 338,114 338,114 84,529 190,189 274,718 100482 63,396 Milford (Sup.#l) 58,765 581765 58065 141691 33,051 47,746 030183 11,019 Milford (Sup.42) 9,439 9,439 monroe 46,014 46,014 46,014 11,504 25,833 37,337 100782 8,677 Montville 56,170 54,770 54,770 13,693 30,U08 44,501 091382 10,269 Naugatuck 234,824 130,300 130,300 32,575 73,294 105,869 113082 24,431 Naugatuck (Sup.#I) 87,779 87,779 87,779 21,945 49,376 71,321 041883 16,458 Naugatuck-Hous. Auth. 8,271 8,271 4,570 1,142 3,428 4,570 113082 0 New Haven 1,008,955 709,241 709,241 177,310 398,948 576,258 121782 132,983 New Haven (Sup.fl) 84,717 84,717 84,717 21,179 47,653 68,832 042883 15,885 New London 44,701 33,900 34,511 8,628 19,413 28,041 100482 6,470 Newtown 45,978 45,978 45,978 11,495 25,863 37,358 101482 8,620 North Branford 25,083 23,086 24,892 6,223 18,669 24,892 1004S2 0 North Haven 65,895 61,287 61,287 15,322 34,474 49,796 102282 11,491 North Haven (Sup.#I) 1,015 1,015 North Stonington 66,504 20,774 20,774 5,186 11,686 16,872 120282 3,902 North StoningtonS.#1 46,950 46,950 Norwich 95,869 91,680 91,680 22,920 51,570 74,490 100482 17,190 Norwich (Sup.#1) 6,523 8,523 NE Acd Jewish Study 169,535 169,535 169,535 42,384 95,363 137,747 092482 31,788 Old Lyme 1,110,269 203,317 203,317 50,829 114,366 165,195 113082 38,122 old Lyme (Sup.#I) 92,026 91,850 91,850 22,962 51,666 74,628 082283 17,222 Old Lyme (Sup.#2) 913,913 913,913 035,184 208,796 578,554 787,350 122383 47,834 Old Saybrook 27,032 27,032 27,032 6,758 15,206 21,964 091382 5,068 Old Saybrook (Sup.#I) 46,961 46,961 46,961 11,740 26,416 38,156 122082 8,805 Old Saybrook (Sup.#2) 7,502 7,502 7,502 1,876 4,220 6,696 040783 1,406 Orange 26,391 25,512 25,512 6,378 14,351 20,729 092482 4,783 Orange (Sup.#l) 6,944 6,944 6,944 1,736 3,906 5,642 111082 1,302 oxford 76,905 76,905 76,905 19,226 43,259 62,485 091382 14,420 Oxford (S,-,p.#l) 5,965 5,965 5,966 1,492 3,356 4,849 113082 1,118 oxford (Sup.#2) 18,640 18,640 18,640 4,660 10,485 15,145 041883 3,495 Portland 32,058 32,058 32,058 8,015 l8rC33 26,048 113082 6,010 Preston 2,194 2,194 2,195 549 1,646 2,195 090982 0 Prospect 80,436 80,436 79,806 19,952 44,891 64,843 092482 14,963 Prospect (Sup.#l) 18,167 18,167 18,167 4,542 10,219 14,761 OP1183 3,406 Prospect (Sup.#2) 5,742 5,742 5,742 1,436 32,30 4,666 092183 1,076 Salem 15,032 15,032 15,033 3,758 11,275 15,033 090182 0 Seymour 159,702 150,798 150,79& 37,700 84,824 122,524 102282 29,274 Seymour (Sup.#I) 1,993 1,993 1,993 498 1,121 1,619 051183 374 Saynour-Hous. Auth. 74,115 74,115 74,115 18,529 41,690 60,219 031183 13,896 Shelton 163,723 163,723 163,723 40,931 87,069 128,000 100782 35,723 Shelton (Sup.#I) 122,603 122,603 122,603 30,651 68,964 99,615 081183 22,988 SoLthbury 66,1186 66,186 66,186 16,547 37,320 53,867 090182 12,319 Sprague 7,239 7,239 7,239 1,810 5,429 7,239 090982 0 Ston4ngton 120,631 120,631 120,631 30,158 67,855 98,013 091382 22,618 Stratford 12,295 12,087 14,002 3,500 10,502 14,002 113082 0 SC Ct Reg Water Auth 282,784 278,627 278,627 69,657 156,728 226,385 091382 52,242 SC Ct Reg Water Auth 4,158 4,158 4,158 1,040 2,339 3,379 051283 779 D-2 &riount Approved Approved State Advanced Total Pate Rerainder Agency Requested by State by FFMA Paid, by FFMA Paid Paid [email protected]'A ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------ ---------- SC @,t Reg Water Auth 21,995 19,564 19,564 4,R91 11,005 15,896 082383 3,668 @" -- L., nbu 11 30,121 30,121 30,121 7,5 30- 16,943 24,473 101482 5,648 Voluntown 2,392 2,392 2,392 598 1,794 2,392 090982 0 Wa I I ing to rd 55,002 55,002 55,@002 13,751 30,939 44,690 090182 10,312 Wallingford (Sup.fl) 2,500 2,500 2,500 625 1,406 2,031 082283 469 Waterbuzy 83,385 70,277 70,277 17,569 39,531 57,100 100482 13,177 Waterford 102,528 95,163 95,163 23,791 53,529 77,320 100482 17,843 Waterford (Sup.#I) 18,956 18,956 18,956 4,739 10,663 15,402 040783 3,554 Waterford Cntry. Sch. 23,767 23,767 23,767 5,942 13,369 19,311 111082 4,456 West Haven 31,064 31,064 26,46B 6,617 14,888 21,505 092482 4,963 @-.'est Paver. (Sup.fl) 4,596 4,596 4,596 11149 21585 31734 041583 862 West Shore Fire Dist. 2,374 2,374 2,374 593 1,781 2,374 12i782 0 I-,estbrook 96,743 96,743 96,743 24,186 54,418 78,604 010383 18,139 Westbrook (Sup.#1) 86,619 86,619 86,619 21,655 48,723 70,378 040783 16,241 Westport 1,271 1,271 1,271 318 953 1,271 100462 0 Wolcott 71,201 65,087 65,087 16,272 36,311 52,583 091382 12,504 Wolcott (Sup.#I)* 55,879 55,879 55,979 13,064 31,432 44,495 041583 10,477* Woodbridge 33,587 32,427 [email protected],427 8,107 18,240 26,347 092482 6,080 TOTAL 13,547,253 10,908,561 10,471,404 2,617,007 6,022,400 8,639,407 1,R31,091 TOTAL $ $ $ $ $ $ TOWNS&STATF ACENCIES 16,529,515 13,845,972 12,913,873 2,836,868 6,976,888 9,RI3,756 2,141,987 TOTAL $ $ ALL TOWNS AND STATE ACENCIES 14,910,631 3,136,661 *[email protected]'justnent not yet recognized by FEMA. State reimbursed unallowed portion. FEMA will, adjust at final audit. +906-11,383 *should be $34,018 FEMA State Agencies Amount Approved Approved State Advanced Total Date Remainder Agency Requested by State by FEMA Paid by FEMA Paid Paid FENIIA. ----- ----- Dep-t-.-C-;iId.&Ycuth Sv ---- 11,505 --- 11,505 ---11-1505 ----- ---- 8,629 8,629 112482 0 Dept. Consumer Prot. 7,260 7,260 7,260 5,445 5,445 112482 0 Dep Environment. Prot 393,325 393,325 179,941 39,456 101,217 140,673 102182 33,739 DEP (Sup.11) 204,063 204,063 196,717 49,179 110,653 159,832 022483 36,885 DEP (Sup.#2) 106,517 106,517 106,517 26,629 59,916 86,545 081283 19,972 Dept Mental Health 5,771 5,771 5,771 4,328 4,328 110582 0 Dept MR & corrections 5,302 Sr302 2,802 2,102 2,102 0106B3 0 Dept. Public Safety 100,695 59,444 59,444 33,437 33,437 101382 11,146 Dept.Pub.Saf.(Sup.fl) 29,059 29,059 29,059 16,346 16,346 041183 5,448 Dept Transportation 692,097 688,497 *443,704 104,597. 249,584 354,181 101382 83,194 11-Conn 1,727 1,727 1,727 1,295 1,295 110882 0 DOT (Supp #l) 642,731 642,731 642,731 361,536 361,536 091483 120,512 DOT (Supp #2) 782,210 782,210 755,291 TOTAL 2,982,262 2,937,411 2,442,465 219,861 954,488 1,174,349 310,896 *This number to be reduced by 25,300 to 418,404 which represents the true claimable costs. FEMAIS share will be adjusted with the last payment. D-3 Flood Disaster Relief Worthern, Counties Total Amount Requested by Approved by Approved by Applicant State Town OPM 25% 25% Date Paid ---- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------- Andover 15,037 31759 3t759 11/05/82 Aneove,r (Sup.11) 11556 389 389 1/06/83 As.1ord 766 192 192 10/01/82 Barkhampsted 9,820 2,455 2,455 40/07/82 Berlin 20,395 5,099 5,099 10/20/82 Bristol 137,378 34,344 34,344 10/20/82 Bristol (Sup.#l) 116,149 29,037 29,037 11/19182 Bristol (Sup.#2) 21,948 5,487 5,487 12/27/82 Canterbury 22,754 5,689 5,689 11/05/82 Chaplin 12,850 3,213 3,213 11/05/82 Coventry 44,537 11,134 11,134 02/17/83 Coventry Lake V.T.A. 1,300 325 325 11/22/82 FaE:t Cranby 7,997 1,999 1,999 10/02/82 Eastford 780 195 195 10/22/82 Envir. Prot. 23,680 6,125 5,920 11/23/83 Farmington 12,911 3,228 3,228 10/20/82 Farmington (Sup.11) 7,642 11911 1,911 02/01YO3 Farmingtun (Sup.#2) 261,234 65,309 65,309 11/02/83 Glastonbury 2,518 629 629 10/22/82 Glastonbury (Sup.#1) 28,725 7,181 7,181 11/30/82 Ila-.?ton 9'..'06 2,351 2r351 10/01/82 Hartford 27,462 6,866 6,866 11/05/82 llartford Hous. Auth. 5,274 1,319 1,319 11/17/82 liar',rinton 23,543 5,886 5;886 11/19/82 Fiarwinton (Sup.#I) 2,384 596 596 11/04/83 licbron 114,071 28,517 28,517 10/12/82 flebron (Sup #1) 5,942 1,486 1,486 10/20/82 L'tchfield 20,672 5,168 5,168 10/20/82 Manstield 53,607 13,402 13,402 11/18/82 Marlborough 43,617 10,904 10,904 10/12/82 Marlborough9sup.#1) 724 181 181 10/22/82 New Britain 20 239 51060 5,060 12/17/82 Plymouth 29,755 7,439 7,439 11/01/82 Plymouth (Sup.#!) 3,543 886 886 11/21/82 Poi-.ifret 27,752 6,938 6,938 11/05/82 Rocky Hill 17,070 4,267 4,267 10/14/82 Rocky Hill (Sup.#l) 4,700 1,176 1,176 1/24/83 Scotland 57,769 14,442 14,442 10/01/82 Simsbury 20,535 5,134 5,134 11/30/82 Sinsbury (Sup.#l) 20,369 5,092 5,092 02/01/83 South Windsor 10,585 2,646 2,646 10/01/82 Stafford 27,140 6,785 6,785 10/22/82 Transportation 329,420 82,355 82,355 06/16/83 U-ConnW.Hartford 6,906 1,727 1,727 11/18/82 Tolland 18,425 4,606 4,606 09/21/83 Waterfront Manor A. 326 82 82 12/19/82 Watertown 24,288 6,072 6,072 11/02/82 Watertown (Sup.#l) 27,490 6,873 6,873 11/19/82 West Hartford 99,391 24,848 24,848 10/01/82 West Hartford(Sup.#1) 48,114 12,028 12,028 11/01/82 Winchester 31,978 7,995 7,995 10/14/82 Woodbury 102,081 25,520 25,520 11/19/82 Woodstock 12,203 3,051 3,051 3/15/83 TOTAL 1,996,758 499,398 499,193 D-4 APPENDIX E FEDERAUSTATE AGREEMENT FOR DISASTER ASSISTANCE Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I J,W, McCorniack Post 0111tv and Court House Boston, Massachum-its 02109 Honorable William O'Neill June 15, 1982 Governor of Connecticut State Capitol Hartford, CT 06115 Dear Governor O'Neill: 1. This letter is the Federal-State Disaster Assistance Agreement for a Major Disaster. No. FEMA-661-DR, under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, as amended, 42 USC 5121 et seq: Public Law 93-288, hereinafter referred to as the Act), in accordance with 44 CFR 205.44 (Please note that these Regulations were formerly designated 24 CFR, Part 2205). Exhibit A, Federal Financial Assistance and Exhibit B, State Certification Officers are attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. On June 14, 1982, the President determined that damages resulting from severe storms and flooding have caused a Major Disaster in your State, and you hereby acknowledge receipt of notice of thi5 declaration. You have certified in your request a commitment of $5,127.000 on the part of the State and $13,698,500 on the part of the local government. A copy of your request and supplement of June 10, 1982, are attached as Exhibit C and made a part hereof. You have further indicated your intention to request from the State legislature full reimbursement for local government for Public Assistance expenditures. You have also indicated your intent to implement the Individual and Family Grant Program, and this expression of intent represents your agreement to comply with 44 CFR 205.44(f). 3. Federal assistance will be made available in accordance with the Act, Executive Order 12148, and the implementing Regulations found in Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations as amended and currently applicable handbooks. Reimbursement to the State for eligible disaster costs will be based on the submission and FEMA approval of project applications and vouchers supported by detailed breakdown of eligible costs. 4. No project applications will be approved for assistance unless the damage or hardship to be alleviated resulted from the major disaster which took place on June 4 through June 7, 1982. 5,. In the event that funds are to be transferred to the State of Connecticut for disaster relief purposes, the State and its political subdivisions agree to the following- In the event that the State of Connecticut or its political subdivisions violates any of the conditions imposed upon disaster relief assistance under Public Law 93-288, this Agreement or 2 3 applicable Federal Regulations, the Director of FEMA, or his 9. Federal assistance extended under the Act and this Agreement delegate, will notify the State that additional financial assistance shall be limited to the following area of the State of Connecticut for the purpose of the project in connection with which the violation and such additional areas as may be subsequently designated by the occurred will be withheld until such violation has been corrected. Associate Director for State and Local Programs and Support of the Provided, however, that the Director of FEMA, or his delegate will Federal Emergency Agency: notify the State that further financial assistance will be withheld for the project for which it has been determined that a violation For Individual Assistance and Public Assitance: Fairfield. New exists, or for all or any portion of financial assistance which has Haven, New London, and Middlesex Counties. or Is to be made available to the State or local governments for the purpose of disaster relief assistance under the provisions of the Act, For Individual Assistance only: Hartford, Litchfield, Tolland this Agreement. or applicable Federal Regulations or handbooks. The and Windham Counties. State further agrees that FEKA or State auditors, the Governor's Authorized Representative, the Regional Director, the Associate Director, 10. The State agrees to assume responsibility for the administration and the Comptroller General of the United States or their duly authorized and operation of the disaster Temporary Housing Program in accordance representatives shall for the purpose of audit and examination have with Exhibit D, Administration of the Temporary Housing Program, which access to any books, documents, papers, and records of any recipients is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The State further agrees of Federal disaster assistance and of any persons or entities which to assume all financial responsibility for the disaster Temporary perform any activity which is reimbursed to any extent with Federal Housing Program beginning no later than eighteen months from the disaster assistance funds dispersed under the authority of the Act. disaster declaration date. unless that date is extended by the Associate Director for State and Local Programs and Support. 6. No Member or Delegate to Congress, or Resident Commissioner. shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit 11. The Governor shall establish through the State agency responsible to arise thereupon: Provided, however, that this provision shall not for regulations of the insurance industry, adequate measures to be construed to extend to any contract made with a corporation for its ensure that insurance companies make full payment of insurance general benefit. benefits to disaster victims. The State also shall take all responsible steps to ensure that disaster victims are aware of procedures for 7. The State Officers authorized to execute certification and otherwise filing insurance claims, are informed of any State procedures instituted to act on behalf of the State are listed in Exhibit 8 which is attached for assisting insured disaster victims, and are aware of their responsi- hereto and made a part hereof. bility to repay government assistance which is duplicated by insurance proceeds. S. The State agrees that, as a condition for any Federal loan or grant, the State or the applicant shall evaluate the natural hazards in the 12. The State will establish and maintain an active State program under areas in which the proceeds of the grants or loans are to be used and this Agreement of nondiscrimination in disaster assistance outlined shall make appropriate recommendations to mitigate such hazards for in 44 CFR 205.16. This program will encompass all State and local Federally assisted projects. The State further agrees: actions to this Agreement. (1) to follow up with applicants, within State capabilities, to. 13. The State will establish and maintain a program under this Agreement assure that, as a condition for any grant or loan under the Act, to assure that recipients of FEMA disaster assistance comply with appropriate hazard mitigation actions are taken; (2) to prepare the HUD Consolidated List of Debarred, Suspended, and Ineligible and submit not later than 180 days after the declaration to the Contractors. This program will encompass all State and local [email protected] Regional Director for concurrence, hazard mitigation plan or plans pursuant to this Agreement. for the designated areas, and (3) to review and update as necessary ,disaster mitigation portions of the emergency plans. The Regional Virector agrees to make Federal technical advice and assistance available to support the planning efforts and actions. 4 14. The State will notify all States and local agencies and local governments within the areas defined by this Agreement of the the Federa I expendi tures sha I I i nc I ude the amount of ass is t a nce time limitations agreed to herein and the terms and conditions Jus the additional costs attributable solely to the disaster of eligibility for Federal assistance. p declaration; 15. The State of Connecticut understands that it is the intent of the c. That FEMA General Counsel shall have the opportunity to review any Federal Government to take whatever action is necessary to charge for. or otherwise recover the Federal Government's expenditures in proposed settlement between the State or a political subdivision and a responsible party. and no settlement shall be made if the providing assistance to alleviate the hardship, suffering or damages FEMA General Counsel objects within thirty (30) days after receiving resulting from severe storms and flooding which began on or about notice of any proposed settlement; June 4, 1982, if any party is liable for causing or contributing to the effects of the disaster. Such actions may include a request to d. That neither the State nor a political subdivision shall oppose the Department of Justice to institute legal action against any intervention by the United States in any legal action instituted potentially liable party. in accordance with this paragraph; 16. The State of Connecticut agrees, on behalf of itself, its agencies and e. Upon request, to assign to the United States any remedies or rights employees, on behalf of its political subdivisions, including any municipal of recovery it has, or its political subdivisions have, against any corporation, local government, district or board, and on behalf of any party or parties, to the extent of Federal expenditures resulting from other recipients of Federal disaster assistance, as a condition of e storms and flooding in Connecticut; receiving Federal disaster assistance benefiting the State, a political sever subdivision or its citizens: W f. That United States may enforce any of the provisions of this paragraph by appropriate judicial actions, by withholding Federal funding or by a. That the State and its political subdivisions shall pursue Vigorously offsetting against current or future disaster assistance payments. and expeditiously, for the purpose of recovering Federal expenditures in providing disaster assistance following the severe storms and flooding which began on or about June 4, 1982. all available remedies 17. This Agreement may be amended at any time with written approval of both and rights of recovery against any party or parties which might be parties. liable. and further, that the State and its political subdivisions shall cooperate, in a reasonable manner, with the United States in the latter's Ancerely. efforts to ensure compliance with the provisions of this paragraph; b. That, in the event that the State or a political subdivision obtains & V-A a recovery from responsible party, the United States shall be reimbursed David M. rks its expenditures in providing disaster assistance following the severe Regional [email protected] ctor storms and flooding in Connecticut in accordance with the following: 1. The recovering party, as well as the United States, first shall be reimbursed their reasonable costs of litigation from such recovered Agreed: funds; for the purpose of this paragraph, costs of litigation shall include reasonable attorneys' fees incurred, reasonable experts' fees, court costs and all other reasonable additional costs related )A - ng- n- LLnP- to the preparation and prosecution of legal action for recovery; overnor, State- -of -Corinecticut [Tate 2. Funds recovered in excess of the costs of litigation shall be pai-d, Attachments on a priority basis, to the United States as reimbursement for Federal expenditures resulting from the declaration of major disaster for severe storms and flooding in Connecticut, until all such expenditures have been reimbursed; for the purpose of this paragraph, APPENDIX F FLOOD-RELATED LEGISLATION JUNE, 1982 SESSION Substitute Senate Bill No. 1001 PURTC ACT No. 82-1 AN ACT CONCERNINr THI AUTHORIZATTON OF BONDS OF THE STATE FOR FLOOD RELIEF PURPOSES. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened- section 1. The state bond commission may authorize the issuance of bonds of the state in accordance with the provisions of sections 1 to 10, inclusive, of this act, in one or more series and in principal amounts necessary to carry out the purposes of this act, but not in excess of the aggregate amount of thirty million dollars. sec. 2. The proceeds of the sale of bonds, to the extent hereinafter stated, shall be used for t he following purposes- (a) For the department of housing: For the low- in te rest flood @elief housing loan fund, established under section 3 of this act, to provide loans for reconstruction, replacement, re storation and rehabilitation of dwelling units damaged or destroyed as a result of the flood waters and related occurrences from June 4, 1982, to June 7, 1982, inclusive, not exceeding five million dollars. (b) For the department of eco-uDiLic development: For the low-interest loan program, established under section 5 of this act, to provide loans to business concerns, including agricultural concerns, for repair, reclamation or replacement of machinery, equipment, real property and improvements thereon, and inventory or crops which are damaged, destroyed or otherwise adversely affected by an emergency or disaster, which emergency or disaster has been proclaimed by the governor under the laws of this state, not exceeding five million dollars. (c) For the state and local shares of federal public assistance under the Presidential Disaster Declaration of June 14, 1962, or any amendments thereto, and for amounts equivalent to such state and local shares in the case cf state and town owned property, damaged or destroyed by flood waters and related occurrences from June 4, 1982 to June 7, 1982, inclusive, which is not located within the area of the state to which said Presidential declaration is applicable, not exceeding tv,@ntY million dollars. Sec. 3. (NEW) (a) There is established a low-interest flood relief housing loan fund to provide low cost loans for reconstruction, F- I Substitute Senate Bill No. 1001 Substitute. Senate Bill No. 1001 replacement, restoration and rehabilitation of bonds [shall be] deposited in the small home dwelling units damaged or destroyed as a result of beating oil dealers' loan fund created under this flood waters and related occurrences from June 4, section SHALL nr TRANSFRRRED TO THE BUSINESS 1982, to June 7, 1982, inclusive. EMERGENCY RTLIEr LOAN FUND, SUBJECT TO THP (b) The commissioner of housing shall adopt PROVISTONS OF SUBSECTION (f) OF SECTION 16a-43, AS regulations in accordance vith the provisions of AMENDED BY SECTION 5 OF THIS ACT. All provisions chapter 54 of the general statutes which shall of section 3-20 or the exercise of any right or establish loan proceaures, repayment terms, pover gr ant ed thereby wbicb are not inconsistent security requirements, default and remedy with the provisions of this section are hereby provisions and such other terms and conditions as adopted and shall apply to all bonds authorized by the commissioner deems appropriate to carry out the state bond commission pursuant to this the purposes of subsection (a) of this section, section, and temporary notes in anticipation of provided no loan shall be made to any applicant the money to be derived from the sate of any such unless the commissioner first determines that such bonds so authorized may be issued in accordance applicant is unable to obtain sufficient with said section 3-20 and from time to tiw assistance through programs of the federal renewed. Said bonds shall mature at such time or governapnt and in the opinion of the commissioner, times not exceeding twenty Tears from their %uch applicant will be unable to properly finance respective dates as may be provided in or pursuant such reconstruction, replacement, restoration or to the resolution or resolutions of the state bond rehabilitation, as may be necessary, without state commission authorizing such bonds. Said bonds assistance. The commissioner shall charge and issued pursuant to this section shall be general collect interest on each loan at a rate not to obligations of the state and the full faith and exceed one per cent above the rate of interest credit of the state of Connecticut are pledged for borne bv the bonds of the state last issued prior the payment of the principal of and interest on to the date such loan is awarded. said bonds as the same become due, and adcordingly (c) If the commissioner adopts regulations in and as part of the contract of the state with the accordance with the provisions of subsection (b) holders of said bonds, appropriation of all of section 4-168 of the general statutes, amounts necessary for punctual payment of such notwithstanding the provisions of said section, principal and interest is hereby made, and the the regulations may be submitted to the standing treasurer shall pay such principal and interest as lpgislative regulation review committee not later the same become due. t han three days prior to the proposed effective Sec. S. Section 16a-43 of the general date of such regulations. statutes is amended by adding subsections (d) (d) Any administrative expenses incurred in (e), (f) and (g) as follows: carrying out the provisions of this section to the (REV) (d) A business emergency relief extent not paid by the department of housing, or revolving loan fund, to be held in trust by the from monies appropriated for such I purpose, shall state treasurer, is created. The state, acting be paid from the loan fund established under this through the commissioner of economic development, section, provided the total administrative may provide. loans from said fu nd to business expenses paid from the fund may not exceed one per concerns, including agricultural concerns, for cent of the total of the loans made from the fund. repair, reclamation or replacement of machinery, Sec. 4. Subsection (c) of section 16a-43 of equipment, real property and improvements thereon, the general statutes is repealed and the following and inventory or crops which are damaged, is substituted in lieu thereof- destroyed or otherwise adversely affected by an (c) To carry out the purposes of this emergency or disaster, which emergency or disaster section, the state bond commission shall have the has been proclaimed by the governor under the laws power, -from time to time but not later than June of this state, provided (1) any such business 30, 1980, to authorize the issuance of bonds of concern is unable to obtain sufficient assistance the state in one or more series and in principal through programs of the federal government, or in : mounts not exceeding in tho [email protected] three the event thirty days or more have elapsed since illion dollars. The proceeds of the sale of-said such business submitted application for assistance -2- -3- P-2 Substitute Senate Bill No. 1001 Substitute Senate Rill No. 1001 under a program of the federal government and such (WEV) (e) Each such loan shall be authorized application has not been acted upon, (2) such by the Connecticut developgent allthOrity or, it business concern applies to the department for the authority so determines, by a committee of the such loan within one year of the date of the authority consirting of the chairman and either 9 ove, rn or I sproclamation of such emergency or one other member of the authority or its executive disaster and (3) in the opinion of the director, as specified in the determination of the commissioner. such business concern will be unable authority. Any administrative expenses incurred to properly finance such expenses without state in carrying out the provisions of this section, to assistance. The commissioner shall charge and the extent not pa id by the authority or from collect interest on each such loan at a rate not monies appropriated to the department. shall be to exceed one per cent above the rate of interest paid from the business emergency relief revolving borne by the bonds of the state last issued prior loan fund, provided total administrative expenses to the date such loan is awarded, except that, if paid from said fund may not exceed one per cent of such rate Is lover than the rate charged by the the total of such loans, and provided further, If Federal Small Business Administration for loans approved by the commissioner of economic provided under its economic dislocation loan development for purposes of such administrative program. then to the extent permitted by federal expenses, payment of a charge in the amount of tax law requirements the Federal Small Business one-half of one per cent of the amount of any such Administration rate shall be charged and loan may be required from the recipient of such collected. in no event shall the total amount of loan. Payments from said fund to business such loan provided by the state to any single concerns or to pay such administrative expenses business concern for relief from any one shall bK-. made by the treasurer upon certification proclaimed disaster or emergency exceed five by the commissioner of economic development that hundred thousand dollars. The term for repayment the payment Is authorized under the provisions of of any loan allowed under this section shall not this section, under the applicable. rules and excped ten years, provided that no loan shall be regulations adopted under subsection (d) of this aade the term of which ends later than October 1, section, and, if made to a business concern, under 1993. Payments made by small business concerns on the terms and conditions established by the all such loans shall be paid to the treasurer and authority or the duly appointed committee thereof deposited by the treasurer in the small business in authorizing the making of the loan. emergency relief fund, and such payments shall be (WEV) (f) !t is hereby determined that the Used to make additional loans. The commissioner small home heating oil dealers' revolving loan may enter in to agreements with lending fund is no longer necessary In the public interest institutions to administer provision of such loans to carry out the purposes for which it was in accordance with the provisions of this section. established. The commissioner of economic The commissioner shall adopt regulations in development shall prepare a certificate showing accordance with the provisions of chapter 54 which all loans and 'encumbrances against said fund and shall establish loan procedures, repayment terms, file such certificate with the secretary of the security requirements, default and remedy office of policy and management. As of the date provisions and such other terms and conditions as of such filing all assets then held to the credit the commissioner shall deem appropriate to carry of the small home heating oil dealers' revolving out the purposes of this section. The program of loan fund created under subsection (a) of section loans and the business emergency relief revolving 16a-43 shall be transferred to the business loan fund 9stablished under this section shall evergeucT relief revolving loan fund established terminate not later then October 1, 1993 and the nnaer subsection (d) of section 16a-43, as amended assets of said fund as of October 1, 1993, shall by this section, except to the extent of loans and be transferred by the state treasurer to a special encumbrances listed in the certificate of the sinking fund. Said amount plus any interest commissioner of economic development filed in earned thereon shall be used in payment of debt accordance with this subsection. service of the state in addition to amounts (NEV) (q) rf the commissioner adopts otherwise appropriated for such purpose. regulations under subsection (d) of section 16a- -4- -5- F-3 Substitute Senate Bill No. 1001 Substitute Senate Bill No. 1001 43, as amended by this section, in accordance with available or becoming available hereunder for such the provisions of subsection (b) of section 4-168 project. If the request includes a recommendation of the general statutes, notwithstanding the that some amount of such federal, private or other provisions of said section 4-168, the regulations moneys should be added to such state moneys, then, may be submitted to the standing legislative if and to the extent directed by the state bond regulation review committee not later than three commission at the time of authorization of such days prior to the proposed effective date of such bonds, said amcunt of such federal, private or regulations. other moneys then available or thereafter to be sec. 6. All provisions of section 3-20 of made available for costs in connection with such the general statutes or the exercise of any right project may be added to any state moneys available or power granted thereby which are not or becoming available hereunder for such project inconsistent with the provisions of this act are and he used for such project, any other federal, hereby adopted and shall apply to all bonds private or other moneys then available or authorized by the state bond commission pursuant thereafter to be made available for costs in to sections I to 10, inclusive, of this act, and connection with such project upon receipt shall, temporary notes in anticipation of the money to be in conformity with applicable federal and state derived froi the sale of any such bouds so law, be used bT the treasurer to meet principal of authorized may be issued in accordance with said outstanding bonds issued pursuant to sections I to section and from time to time renewed. Such bonds 10, inclusive, of this act, or to meet tbp shall nature at such time or times not exceeding principal of temporary notes issued in twenty years from their respective dates as may be anticipation of the money to be derived from the provided in or pursuant to the resolution or sale of bonds theretofore authorized pursuant to resolutions of the state bond commission said sections for the purpose of financing such authorizing such bonds. costs, either hy purchase or redemption and Sec. 7. None of said bonds shall be cancellation of such bonds or notes or by payment authorized except upon a finding by the state bond thereof at maturity. Vhenever any of the federal, commission that there has been filed with it a private or other moneys so received with respect request for such authorization, which is signed by to such project are usei to meet principal of such the secretary of the office of policy and temporary notes or whenever principal of any such management or by or on behalf of such state temporary notes is retired by application of officer, department or agency and stating such revenue receipts of the state, the amount of bonds terms and conditions as said commission, in its theretofore authorized in anticipation of which discretion, may require. such temporary notes were issued, and the sec. S. For the purposes of sections 1 to aggregate amount of bonds which may be authorized 10, inclusive, of this act. *state moneys" means pursuant to section I of this act, shall each be the proceeds of the sale of bonds authorized reduced by the amount of the principal so met or pursuant to said sections I to 10, inclusive, of retired. Pending use of the federal, private or this act or of temporary notes Issued in other moneys so received to meet principal as anticipation of the moneys to be derived from the hereinabove directed, the amount thereof may be sale of such bonds. Each request filed as invested by the treasurer in bonds or obligations provided in section 7 of this act for an of, or guaranteed by, the state or the United authorization of bonds shall identify the purpose States or agencies or instrumentalities of the or project for which the proceeds of the sale of United States, and shall be deemed to be part of such bonds are to be used and expended and, in the debt retirement funds of the state, and net addition to any terms and conditions required earnings on such investments shall be used in the pursuant to said section 7, include the same manner as the said moneys so invested. recommendation of the person signing such request Sec. 9. Any balance of proceeds of the sale as to the extent to which federal, private or of said bonds authorized for any purpose described other moneys then available or thereafter to be in sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this act in excess of made available for costs In connectLon with aoy the cost thereof may be used for any other purpose such project should be added to the state moneys described in said section if the state bond -6- F-4 Substitute Senate Bill No. 1001 Substitute Senate Bill No. 1001 commission shall so determine a nd d i rec t. Any dredging equipment for use at Silver Lake, balance of proceeds of the sale of said bonds in Meriden-Berlin, not exceeding one hundred fifty excess of the costs of all the purposes described thousand dollars; (7) improvements to landfill in said sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be applied to site, Silver Sands State Park, not exceeding,fifty the payment of debt service on and retirement of thousand dollars; (8) grants-in-aid to said bonds. municipalities for planning for solid waste heat Sec. 10. The bonds issued pursuant to recovery projects, not exceeding two hundred sections 1 to 10, inclusive, of this act shall be thousand dollars: (9) land acquisition and general obligations of the state and the full development at West Rock Ridge State Park, not faith and credit of the State of Connecticut are exceeding five hundred thousand dollars. pledged for the payment of the principal of and Sec. 13. (NEW) The cORmissioner of interest on said bonds as the same become due, and environmental protection shall study the statess accordingly and as part of the contract of the policies, procedures and resources related to state with the holders of said bonds, planninq for and ensuring the safety of public and appropriation of all amounts necessary for private dams a rd shall report to the general punctual payment of such principal and interest is assembly the results of the study no later than hereby made, and the treasurer shall pay such January 15, 1983. The study shall include: ( 1) principal and interest as the same become due. An estimate of