A statement of a problem…Cedar Rapids, Iowa (June 2008)

Cedar River Flood & Water Quality Control Report &

Proposal

Constructed Wetlands Coupled with

“Minuteman” Retention Basin
Network for Flood Control & Water
Quality on the Cedar River
(CW / MRBN)
Friday, June 13 2008 A flood of epic scale and destruction
 Other contributors to these investigative efforts that
culminated in this draft of a report and concept proposal

Initiated ad-hoc Rebuild Iowa Legislative Coaching and University of Iowa

volunteer committee Subcommittee Chair on suggestions: Hydrology Department
with similar ideas that Watershed issues:
initiated this Senator Rob Hogg Coaching, sounding
investigative effort: Bill Bywater board & Idea
Iowa Department of contributor:
Clark Rieke Agriculture
Joe Aossey Iowa Department of Dr. Larry Weber
Natural Resources Department Chair
Mike Richards Coaching, sounding
Robin Cash board, idea contributor, Dr. Witold Krajewski
Coaching, sounding
Don Palmer resource coordinator
Hydrology Coordinator
board, hurdle issues…
Chuck Gipp
Rich Leopold, DNR Director Soil & Water
Iowa State Director Division
University Other
DNR Watershed
Agricultural Engineering Report & PowerPoint Concrete culvert
Improvement Section:
Staff: Presentation manufacturer in Iowa
Jeff Berckes, Coordinator
Field Tile Behavior: Adam Kiel, Don Palmer Water control hardware
Rick Cruse Watershed Analyst
Tim Palmer vendors
Matt Helmers
Cedar River Flood & Water Quality Control Report &
Proposal

Constructed Wetlands Coupled with

“Minuteman” Retention Basin
Network for Flood Control & Water
Quality on the Cedar River
(CW
CW / MRBN is an “active, / MRBN)
real-time” flood and water quality control
system using upstream “minuteman” retention basins and wetlands in a
network system that is integrated throughout the total Cedar River
Watershed to maintain the flow and contaminants in the Cedar River
within acceptable levels along its route.
February 1, 2009 / Revision (B)

Prepared by the CW / MRBN Team Members with Legislative Guidance from

State Senator Rob Hogg & Restore Iowa Sub-Committee Chair, Bill Bywater
(First draft report pulled together for the team by member Don Palmer, 319-360-3803.
This report is still under team review for updates and improvements.)
 Proposal Contents
1. Introduction to the CW / MRBN Flood & Water Quality
Control System –
Learn how it works by having the systems address the
challenge of the year 2008, 500-year flood in Cedar Rapids
and not have the Cedar River leave its banks and maintain
required water quality along its route through eastern Iowa!
Learn step by step in this proposal…
2. Step 1 - Definition of how, where and the number of
“minuteman” retention basins within the proposed system.
6. Step 2 - Description of the method of developing these basins
by taking advantage of the natural topography and the
existing drainage barriers.
4. Step 3 – Explanation of how this system integrates new
technology developments within the science & engineering of
Hydrology, Laser assisted area topography mapping,
expanded computer software and computational capabilities
that can network sub areas of watershed into a flood control
system.
5. Step 4 – Identification of where similar flood-prone watershed
areas such as the one in Southwestern Germany and Hungary
are already implemented and using these similar principles.
 Proposal Contents - Continued
7. “Wetlands” incorporation into this Flood Control System
and the restoration of current lands that the owners want
help in returning to their natural condition as wetland.
8. Reimbursements to the land owners for the development
of these minutemen basins on their property. How can this
be done?
(Yearly benefits and additional benefits should another
flood occur)
9. Required Flow Control Hardware items and suppliers that
are already providing these items to an international
market. New remote control features that need
development from established component elements.

10. Definition of the required study phase that uses the

available technology to outline the guidelines for the
design and implementation of this system and its
confidence factor for handling 500-year flood levels and
greater.
11. Cost estimations of the required quick look feasibility
confirmation study, but also the projected costs and time
phase of the proposed construction and implementation.
 Proposal Contents - Glossary
Appendix 1 Glossary of terms used within this proposal
(This section can be skipped and referred to as necessary by the readers and
their familiarity with the terms in the field of hydrology)

“Minutemen” Retention Basins

Temporary retention basins that can be “called on” at a moment’s notice
to be changed from crop land or grazing use to a flood retention basin.

“Wetlands”
Existing wetlands and those areas that owners want to be returned to
wetlands are also integrated into the network of retention basins and will
be managed as wetlands as well as occasional “Minutemen” retention
basins.

“Integrated Flood Control System”

The integration of new hydrological status sensors throughout the total
watershed to permit real time determination of the watershed status and
the flood control measures that are available to maintain flow in the Cedar
River at its capacity level.
 Proposal Contents – Glossary / continued

“NEXRAD”
Is a Doppler weather radar system with a network of stations
covering eastern Iowa that is currently deployed and functioning
that is completely “mapping” the total Cedar River watershed and
can provide data streams regarding precipitation intensity with
respect to time and cumulative amounts for specifically, defined
sub-regions within the watershed. The data is there for us to use
as data inputs into a new technology hydrological model that now
has the computer technology necessary to integrate information
across a watershed the size of our Cedar River and provide a focus
of action for this network system.
(Just ten years ago, this technology wasn’t available to be used!)

“Hydrograph”
A graph showing for a given point on a river or stream the flow
volume, state (depth), velocity or other property of water with
respect to time.
 Proposal Contents – Glossary / continued

“LiDAR” (Light Detection and Ranging)

LiDAR or Laser scanning is a relatively new land surveying
technique which is based on high precision laser scanners, the
Global Positioning System (GPS) and Inertial Measurement Units
(IMUs). Combined, they allow the positioning and orientation of the
footprint of a laser beam as it hits an object, to a high degree of
accuracy.

Scanning Technology within LiDAR. The laser scanner

produces an optical pulse that is transmitted, reflected off an
object, and returned to the scanner’s receiver. With the pulse
traveling at the speed of light, the travel time of the pulse can be
converted into range measurement. Combining the laser range,
laser scan angle, and the laser position and orientation from Terra
control, accurate 3D target coordinates can be calculated for each
pulse. This is a robust and reliable technique that can be used in
most weather conditions.

Airborne LiDAR. The airborne mapping technique uses a laser

scanner to measure the distance between the laser sensor and
the ground resulting in a surface “map.” This technique is an ideal
application for performing quick and accurate topographical
mapping of Iowa watersheds!
 Proposal Contents – Glossary / continued

LiDAR Mapping in progress in Iowa.

Currently, the state of Iowa has previously released contracts for laser
topographical mapping within the state. Approximately $4.3 M have been
directed to this mapping effort. However, progress to date has been
accomplished in Western Iowa. Presently, no laser mapping effort has been
directed for the Cedar River Watershed to date.

River Stream Gauges (New Technology)

Radar technology has been applied to stream flow measurement. Surface
velocity can be measured with devices similar to those used on the
nation’s highways by the Highway Patrol to enforce speed limits. The base
physics behind the system is the same as the frequency of a radar signal
changes as it is successively reflected by a moving object. The instruments
convert the changes in frequency to a velocity. Such a device was used to
measure the surface velocity of the Skagit River in Washington State.
Stream discharge measurement technology. This new technology has an
application for ground-penetrating radar. The antenna for this type of radar
can be move back and forth across a river suspended from a cableway.
The instrument producers a profile of the streambed and the water depth.
This new technology allows measurement during major floods when
bedload and debris transport is high and can obtain repeated
measurements of channel geometry when the bed is unstable. This
technology provides a more accurate measurement of stream discharge as
compared to the use of stream surface velocities time the “old eight-tenths
rule-of-thumb to get an estimate of the average stream velocity.
 Proposal Contents – Glossary / continued

“Hydrological Model of the Cedar River

Watershed”
A hydrological transport model is a mathematical model used to
simulate river or stream flow and calculate water level and quality
parameters. The most common parameter is surface runoff,
allowing variation in land use type, topography, soil type,
vegetative cover, precipitation and land management practice.
Water quality parameters involve the pollutants addressed, the
complexity of polluted sources, whether the model is steady state
or dynamic, and the time period modeled.

“Acre-Feet of Water”
This term is a more useful expression for the volume of water that
is being conceived in one’s thinking or in discussions with others.
An acre-foot of water is the surface area of one acre with a water
height of one foot level across the total acre of area. However, if
you prefer English units of measure, then one acre-foot of water is
the same as 43, 560 ft3 of water or 325,852 gallons of water!
Also, you can easily convert 100 acre-feet of water to 50 acres at
 Interstate 80 – Closed / Cedar County - Photo: Iowa DOT

This presentation is structured to allow for the

examination of the various component subsystems in
an isolated fashion for the reason of understanding
the total flood control system that provide
recommendations for periodic “control actions”
throughout the watershed.
These “control inputs” such as the remotely controllable
flow gates at retention basins throughout the
watershed, are determined by the system integration
of real time sensors providing information on
cumulative rainfall, rainfall rates, local stream flow
rates and levels, retention basin fill levels, and the
 1. Introduction to the CW / MRBN Flood Control
System
How does this proposed flood control concept work?
• This CW / MRBN flood control concept will be described by
showing how it could have prevented the flood impact on Cedar
Rapids by the 2008 flood levels experienced.

• Use the 2008 Hydrograph of the Cedar River at a reference point

within Cedar Rapids that shows the Cedar River flow volume with
respect to time.
(Rough approximation shown below to complete this
demonstration.
1. Introduction (continued)
How is it proposed to store 1,080,000 acre-feet of water in these
“minutemen” retention basins upstream in the Cedar River
watershed using this proposed CW / MRBN system?
Steps in learning how this flood control system is constructed
and how it becomes an interactive network system:
Step 1
Definition of the how, where and the number of Minuteman
retention basins that are required for enduring a 500-year flood
or great in the Cedar Rapids greater community.

Step 2
Description of the method of developing these retention basins
by taking advantage of the natural, existing area topography
and drainage barriers to produce numerous low cost basins
throughout the watershed.

Step 3
Explanation of how this system integrates new technology
developments within the science of engineering of hydrology,
laser assisted topography mapping, expanded computer
software and computational capabilities that can integrate these
numerous sub areas of the watershed into a network flood
control system
1. Introduction (continued)

Step 4
Learn from the flood-prone watersheds such as the one in
Southwestern Germany (Baden-Württenberg) and the Tisza River
watershed in Hungary that have already integrated a number of
these new hydrological tools and control systems to tame flooding
rivers because of their country’s commercial investments already
located in these flood plain zones and the needed growth
expansions in those flood plains for the community welfare.
Changing weather patterns demonstrating great amounts of
seasonal precipitation that added to the river runoff was
integrated into these new river control paradigms.
(It has been done! Why not for Cedar Rapids?)

Step 5
Configure a system for the Cedar Rapids Watershed to
demonstrate this system approach.
2. Step 1

Define how, where and how many “Minutemen”

retention basins are required…

• The Cedar Rapids reference point hydrograph for the 2008 river
flow volume indicates that 1,080,000 acre-feet of water needs
to be retained and released as appropriate for the flow capacity
of the river.

• Geologists and Hydrologist knows that approximately 20% of

the flow in the Cedar River comes from subsurface water flow
emitted from the natural water table and natural springs. Most
of this subsurface flow is accelerated by field tile networks that
occur widely throughout the upper Cedar watershed.

• Placing remote controlled water flow gates at the outlet of these

field tile networks can result in the upriver basins to begin to
retain water flow from the “subsurface up” as well as on top of
the basin!
2. Step 1 (continued)

• Therefore: (20%)(1,080,000 acre feet of water) = 216,000 acre

–feet of water that will be retained within the subsurface with
the closed gates of the field tile networks. This leaves 864,000
acre-feet of water that needs top surface minutemen retention
basins.

• Definition of some characteristics of the Cedar River watershed.

See figure 2.1 for a map of the watershed and figure 2.2 for a
map of the Cedar River and tributaries, along with numerous
smaller streams and creeks that drain the total watershed.
Figure 2-1 The Cedar River Watershed Characteristics Reviewed

• Approximately 6510
square miles in the
watershed above
Cedar Rapids.
• There are 4,166,400
acres of land in the
watershed above
Cedar Rapids
• The bulk of the
watershed above
Cedar Rapids has a
gentle slope of 2%
• Water quality issues
are of major concern in
many streams that
carry excess nitrates
and other certain
bacteria.
Figure 2-2 The Cedar River Watershed Characteristics Reviewed

The Cedar River and Tributaries

2. Step 1 (continued)

Natural existing watershed characteristics determines the size,

number and locations of “minuteman” retention basins to be
developed to meet FY 2008 Flooding levels in the future.

• Earlier it was calculated that the 2008, 500-year flood level in

Cedar Rapids would require the retention of 864,000 acre-feet
of water in the upstream “minuteman” retention basins.

• The natural or “minuteman” retention basins will be sized to fit

the opportunities that the local topography presents.
• The required 864,000 acre-feet of water can also be made
equivalent to other area amounts at other vertical storage
heights and number of acres as demonstrated in the example
below:
The 864,000 acre-feet represents one foot of vertical storage height across of
the area of 864,000 acres. By shaping natural drainage basins within a local
area into retention basins that will have an average vertical height of 3 feet of top
surface water retention, the following options can be calculated to be equivalent
to the one foot amount over the 864,000 acres:
Quantity 3800 basins with 3 feet of height over 60 acres of area
and Quantity 2000 basins with 3 feet of height over 30 acres of area.
- And so forth…to develop natural basins of vertical heights to equate the
volume.
2. Step 1 (continued)
The task of locating over five thousand “minuteman” retention
basins within the Cedar River Watershed is a large and critical
task. The risk of not being able to complete this task must be
addressed early because the flood mitigation approach defined
in this proposal does not have alternate options should the
required number/size of these basins not be found within the
natural topography of this watershed. Only a small amount of
man-made levee-feet can be built to enclose the required
amount of upstream water storage volume and meet the cost
goals of this proposal.
To assure the task of locating this large number of retention
basins, time was spent within the Iowa DNR with the watershed
support personnel and evaluating the current data bases and
watershed software tools that could address the watershed
location challenge and to be able to size the local region
watershed draining through some restriction such as a county
road culvert.

The Iowa DNR has excellent software tools and reasonable

Cedar River Watershed data bases. Software tools such as GIS,
ARCMAP, Version 9.2 working with the Cedar River Watershed
data bases provided access to the required information to locate
and size these “minutemen” retention basins with relative ease.
2. Step 1 (continued)
The example “minuteman” retention basin is shown in Figure 2-
3. The basin is located in Franklin County and its location
relative to the Cedar River Watershed is shown in red in the
upper right corner of Figure 2-3.
The black line in the figure represents the ridge line for the
drainage area that feeds the stream that flows towards the top
of the page. A culvert passing underneath the county road
provides the location for a water gate to stop the flow at that
location and then store 30 acres of water at a three foot level.
- Note that in the example site location shown in Figure 2-3 that
two other retention basins sites can be quickly identified, one on
each side of the example site!
- The software and computer screen interactive interface
allowed the DNR technician to pull up a file containing the
elevation contours and with his computer screen scribe develop
the ridge line “free-hand” for the example site sub-basin! The
number of acres within this sub-basin was readily available
when an inquiry was made of 996 acres.
- Earlier in Figure 2-1, it was indicated that the bulk of the
watershed area above Cedar Rapids has a gentle slope of 2%.
Several quick-looks within various sub-regions of the watershed
gives strong indication that the 5800 “minuteman” retention
 Figure 2-3
Example Retention Basin
defined in Franklin County
using existing Iowa DNR
software tools and
watershed data bases.
2. Step 2
The “how” of the Minuteman retention basins placed
into service!

• “Minuteman” retention basins are converted instantaneously

from a planned row-crop land use or a grassland use farm land
into a flood water retention basin by the remote activation of a
water flow control “gate” added as previously specified by the
CW / NRBN design plan to an existing culvert in a road bed that
then serves as a natural levee to retain a somewhat shallow (i.e.
3-foot height of storage water) but large surface area as
presented by the natural topographical features of the area.
See figure 3-1 for a diagram of this retention basin
development.
Figure 3-2
An example of the watershed
partitioned into sub-regions
Figure 3-2 shows the sub division
of the watershed into small areas
shaped by how the drainage can
be separated and in this case, for
the measurements of nitrates in
drainage systems across the
watershed. Much flow data etc. is
already available because of this
previous work.
• 4. Step 3…Integration of new technology methods &
hardware items
Explanation of how this CW/MRB system, incorporates new
technology developments within the field of Hydrology,
computers and related computational software and laser
assisted topography mapping into the design and operational
capabilities of this proposed system.
• Laser assisted topography mapping (LiDAR)
A major contributor to the effectiveness of the CW/MRBN control
system for managing the flow levels within the Cedar River is
the accuracy of the input data that helps define the boundary
conditions upon which the hydrology model uses to synthesize
the interactive nature of precipitation interacting with the
nature of the watershed as it moves along its drainage path to
become a part of the river flow.
• The accuracy of the watershed topography mapping is one of
these major contributors to the “confidence level” that this
control system will demonstrate in characterizing the flow
behavior of water within the watershed.
• Current topography mapping data being used in determining
our presently defined 100-year flood plains for insurance claims,
as well as the prediction of the behavior of runoff initiated at
some upstream location in the watershed with regard to its time
of arrival at some point downstream such as within the river
banks in Cedar Rapids, is based on mapping work done in 1950.
The resolution of this data obtained by survey crews was simply
4. Step 3 (continued)
Figure 4-1(a) shows the resolution that this 1950s data
has on the hydrology models capability of defining the
sub-region drainage time to a point downstream of Cedar
Rapids.
• The laser mapping technology, LiDAR, can provide
elevation data as fine as +/- 4 inches and referenced to
its location using a GPS-based coordinate system location
technique.

• Figure 4-1(b) shows how an improved hydrology model

can add a greater resolution of drainage times for much
smaller and more numerous sub-regions within the
upstream watershed in reference to drainage times to the
city of Cedar Rapids.
Compare figure 4-1(a) to figure 4-2(b)!
• The LiDAR mapping technique was a Laser Interferometer
measurement tool along with GPS receivers mounted in a
low flying airplane that collects an enormous amount of
digital data as it maps regions of the watershed.
4. Step 3 (continued)
• Hydrology modeling, expanded computer software &
computer computational through-put times, etc.
The above defined advanced technology developments
are interrelated as they collectively add greater accuracy
and resolution to output behavior parameters defining
the flow behavior of water across the total watershed.

• NEXRAD …A Doppler weather radar system already

deployed and in operation across eastern Iowa. See figure
4-2 for a map showing the locations of these sensor
systems.
NEXRAD was designed, built and now managed by the
National Weather Service Bureau of the federal
government.
Technology upgrades that continuously provide enhanced
operational capabilities and accuracies in providing
“weather related” information across eastern Iowa are
being done already.
• Much of the weather related data that can be segregated
by sub areas within the Cedar River watershed is already
being provided but is not being used in a comprehensive
manner to help with flood-risk mitigation for the Cedar
 Sensors covering the Cedar
River Watershed area. (Qty. 4)

Figure 4-2 Doppler Weather Radar Sensor Locations

4. Step 3 (continued)
• This Doppler weather radar system can “map” the total
Cedar River watershed and can provide data, for
example, regarding precipitation intensity with respect to
time and cumulative amounts of specifically defined sub-
regions within the watershed! This distributed data
across the various defined sub-regions of the watershed
is then, the primary input data that is needed by the
watershed developed “hydrology model” that simulates
the behavior of the movement of water along its drainage
path within its sub-region and then become integrated
into a network for the combined response of the total
watershed!
See Figure 4-5

• Data from the sensing systems within the Doppler radar

are data that must also be “calibrated” to ensure that
there is high correlation between, for example, the
rainfall in a sub-region that the radar system senses and
the actual amount of rainfall that fell in that sub region.

• The University of Iowa Hydrology department has

designed, produced and has in operation at numerous
sites within the Iowa City area rainfall monitoring stations
4. Step 3 (continued)
• The U of I rainfall calibration systems are fully automatic
in operation and data reporting and do so in remote
locations without any other support inputs such as power,
etc. These calibration stations are designed such that
they can be easily moved across areas within the
watershed on a temporary basis as the calibration data is
gathered for each sub-region. The automatic data
reporting is accomplished by a computer controlled
cellular phone link that reports as rainfall occurs in that
area. The monitoring station uses battery power with
refresh power provided by solar panels. Figure 4-3 is a
photograph of a U of I automatic rainfall monitoring
station currently in use in the Iowa City area. Figure 4-4
shows the locations of monitoring stations currently
deployed in the Iowa City area.

(Note: Citizens of Iowa City can learn of the monitoring

station located close to their home and can then call the
station’s phone number (for public use) and learn how
much rain has fallen over a particular period of time!)
Figure 4-3
U of I Automatic Rainfall monitoring site for calibration of the NEXRAD Doppler
Weather Radar Rainfall Sensing and Reporting system. (i.e. Rainfall collection
basin, solar panel, cell phone antenna, and room for additional components,
battery, etc. below the flat panel.)
Figure 4-4 Locations of the U of I Automatic Rainfall Monitoring
stations in the Iowa City area.
Figure 4-5
4. Step 3 (continued)

Remote activation of automatic operation of

water control “gates” or valves at the numerous
but selective “minuteman” retention basins
across the watershed is a major flood control
feature of this proposed system!
(See figure 3-1 for an example installation of a
water control gate in a road culvert.)
The operational control system and the support
hardware for the water control gates as shown
in Figure 9-4 is similar in design and operation
of that of the U of I automatic rainfall
monitoring unit shown earlier in figure 4-3
(We don’t need to re-invent the wheel!)
5. Step 4…How other cities have addressed flood
control in this manner!
Identification of where similar flood-prone watershed
areas are already implemented and in operation using
these same similar guiding hydrology principles and
control methodologies.

• Flood control system using retention basins in

southwestern Germany (Management in Baden-
Württenberg for the two river basins of the Rhine and
Neckar rivers)

–There are common features between the flooding issues

of the Cedar River watershed basin and that of the
German river basin defined above. In both, the
communities along their respective rivers have over-
developed adjacent to these rivers. This
overdevelopment has occurred both within a 100-year
flood plain as well as the flood water path as it moves
through the various communities.

- However, in Germany the various affected communities

did not retreat within themselves and each tried
separately to solve these flooding issues by building
5. Step 4…How other cities have addressed flood control in
this manner!
- These German communities joined together within a particular
river basin and formed watershed flood management
organizations and focused on more comprehensive solutions
that were more cost affordable by this collective body of
communities and their combined wealth was then better
invested for the longer term, more permanent solutions to the
global weather change impacts.

- This joint response planning did not require these German

communities to basically change the “historical face and
character” of their older parts of their communities.

- These German watershed flood management organizations

were one of the first to use the new hydrological technology
tools now available that allows an active, real-time flood
management system be developed and managed that
incorporates upstream retention basins or reservoirs.

-A complete report describing this German solution is

referenced in figure 5-1 and can be accessed free of charge on
the web.

- Figure 5-2 is a map of this Baden-Württenberg watershed and

the locations of 34 new retention reservoirs integrated into their
Figure 5-1 Flood control system using upstream water retention basins in
Southwestern Germany. (Introduction of available report)
Fig. 2 Catchment area of Kocher-Lein (A) and upper Jagst
(B) (Table 1 and 2) with the locations of 13 flood control
reservoirs along the rivers Kocher (A) and Lein (tributary),
furthermore with 21 flood control reservoirs along the river
Jagst

Figure 5-2
Retention basins built in
the German watershed.
5. Step 4 – (Continued)
• Flood control system using upstream retention
basins in the Hungarian part of the Tisza River
basin.

- A similar approach is developed in this river

basin as described for the earlier defined
German river basin for flood water management
at the watershed level by an association of
affected communities.

- See figure 5-3 for visual display of the Tisza

River basin.
Figure 5-3 Map of the Tisza river basin in Hungary
5. Step 4 – (Continued)

• Flood control planning in China

China has major water related problems that have become of a
crisis nature. Too much water at times and not enough at other
times. The problem was ignored for too long and now major
national wide directives are being ordered to try and recover.

The integrated approach to flood management in China is now

very comprehensive and complex. Their national flood plan is
based on a three prong focus: (1) delineated flood plains, (2)
flood storage through upstream retention basins and (3) flood
protected areas.

The advantage of upstream retention basins is also allowing

China to begin to better address water quality issues and very
poor land management practices; especially those related to
excess sediment in the surface run-off water.
5. Step 4 – (Continued)
• Water control system in California that uses
upstream retention basins for preserving water for
later release for irrigation purposes.
Because the bulk of the watershed above Cedar Rapids has a
gentle slope of 2%, Iowa can learn from the water management
systems and commercial hardware available and in use in
California in routing water for irrigation in local areas that also
have a gentle slope similar to the Cedar River Watershed.

• Vernon County in Wisconsin using upstream

retention basins for active flood mitigation.
Vernon County is located in southwestern Wisconsin and has a
rugged topography with beautiful scenery. The county was
surrounded by glaciers approximately 12,000 years ago but was
un glaciated itself which left the rough topography. However,
flooding was a growing problem until the Wisconsin legislature
established the PL 566 Coalition that provided the coordination
of a plan & funding that built 22 retention basins upstream of
the troublesome rivers and streams to mitigate the flooding risk
over a period of 15 years. These retention basins are very
similar to the basins built in Germany as discussed earlier. The
average height of the basin levees was 39 feet and an average
levee length of 420 feet. These 22 retention basins created
water storage of 19,132 acre-feet for a watershed area of
 Quick-Look Cost Metric Comparison
Summary:

Vernon County * Cedar River

Watershed
Wisconsin
above Cedar Rapids

Watershed Size 78,881 acres 4,166,400 acres

Storage Basin Capacity Required 19,132 acre-feet

864,000 acre-feet

Total Initial Investment Cost $9 Million $129 Million

Yearly Ongoing Expense TBD $2 Million

Cost per acre-feet of storage $470 $149

Initial cost investment per

Acre of watershed $126 $31

Yearly on-going expense per acre

 Quick-Look Cost Metric Comparison Summary:
“Minutemen” basins CR
Council Plan
Watershed Cost Cedar
Rapids alone
Given:
Total Investment Cost $129 Million
$1,000
Million
Yearly on-going expenses $2 Million
TBD
Total acres of watershed
above Cedar Rapids 4.1 Million acres 4.1
Million Acres
Total population in watershed,
Cedar Rapids & above 516,000 citizens
N/A
Total Population in Cedar Rapids N/A
 Quick-Look Cost Metric Comparison Summary:
“Minutemen” basins
CR Council Plan
Watershed Cost
Cedar Rapids alone
Metrics:

Cost of initial investment per ace of total

Watershed above Cedar Rapids $31.00 $240.00
Cost per acre of developed retention basin $539.00
N/A
Cost per month per watershed citizen
for the next 30 years $1.03 N/A
Cost to maintain flood protection system per
Month per citizen of watershed (City of CR) $0.33 TBD

Cost per month per citizen of Cedar Rapids for

the next 30 years. N/A
$12.63

Cost per citizen of Cedar Rapids N/A

$4,545
 Quick-Look Cost Metric Comparison Summary:

continued “Minutemen” basins CR

Council Plan
approach

Need to move back from the Cedar River, buy Only limited
Large amount
out properties and establish “green space.” amount required required

Contained great risk to CR businesses

and public buildings near river. No risk Some risk

Risk of obtaining money in timely fashion Within local Need

federal
to get plan in effect Control of Watershed help

Adds aspects for improved water quality and Building retention None
provides for improved land management basins already in
practices over the total watershed progress across Iowa
by Dept. Of Agriculture
for nitrate run-off
management

Allows Iowans along each major river Promotes a watershed Each

city is on
watershed to come together and “harness” “system” approach! their
6. Step 5…Configure a system for the Cedar River
Watershed using this new hydrology technology and
established principles that mitigates future flooding
along the Cedar River
• Refine the number of storage acres of land north of Cedar
Rapids that are required for the “minuteman” retention
basins.
In section 2. of this proposal, it was established on a general
overview that 864,000 acre-feet of top surface storage was
required for “minuteman” basins.
In other Iowa DNR reports, it is indicated that the Cedar
River Watershed above Cedar Rapids will have
approximately 1.2% of the watershed will be involved with
rivers, streams and creeks that currently provide the
required drainage.

Therefore: ( 4,063,360 acres in watershed (.012) = 48,760

acres in rivers,
north of Cedar Rapids,)
streams and creeks.

The rivers, streams and creeks will automatically be

considered capable of storing the addition of 3 feet of water
2. Continued

Therefore: 864,000 acre-feet of water storage = 288,000 acres of 3 feet of

water storage

288,000 acres of 3 feet of - 48,760 acres in rivers = 239,240 acres

of
water storage streams and creeks 3 feet of water
capable of handling storage
required.
3 ‘ of water.

Expressed in the quantity of 60 acre-basins at 3 feet of water, the storage is

determined to be a quantity of 3,987 basins.
If we divide the total Cedar River watershed into a quantity of 8 sub-areas,
then we can for this example, assign an equal number of basins to each
subarea.
(Also, the boundaries of these sub-areas could be established such that this
assignment was correct.
3,987 qty of 60 acre/3 feet500 qty of 60 acre / 3 feet of per sub-area
of water storage water storage
8 sub areas
(This could also be expressed as a quantity of 350 – 60 acre / 3 feet basins
and quantity of 300-30 acres / 3 feet basins. This would be a total
quantity of 650 “minutemen” basins per sub area.)

For Field-Tile drainage areas, it is estimated for this example that

approximately 400 field-tile drainage fields per sub-area of the watershed
2. Continued
• In structuring the sub-areas within the Cedar River
Watershed, let us assume that the sub-area drainage flow
system would be that described in Figure 6-1.

• Figure 6-2 is a proposed Control Data-Link and

organizational network for the quantity eight sub-areas.

- The control center has dynamic control over the entire

watershed

- Other observation centers can be located throughout the

watershed as considered necessary for possible back-ups
control delegation from the control center.

- Periodic inspections, maintenance tasks and emergency

actions required on the sub-area level with responsibilities
assigned throughout the watershed at the county
township level. Required funding will be created at the
total watershed level for any required actions.
7. “Wetlands” Incorporation into the CW/MRBN flood
control system for the Cedar River watershed.
• There have been recent efforts within Iowa to return to
“wetlands” a number of acres of land that are not proving to be
profitable as farm land or grazing land for livestock.

• Government funding has been proposed to purchase this land

and return it to its more natural condition within nature of that
as a wetland status.

• Approximately ____ acres have been identified by their owners

that they are more than interested in removing this type of land
from production farming.

• Many of these acres ( _____ acres) are located within the Cedar
River watershed and would easily serve as more “permanent”
retention basins that would also be able to store additional flood
water as the need would arise.

• These wetlands can help restore many features of our state’s

natural ecology regarding for example, the quality of water in
our streams and rivers as well as help restore our state’s
various water tables and the major aquifer that maps beneath
this state.
8. Reimbursements to the land owners for the
development of these “minutemen” retention
basins on their property.
• Any reimbursement to the owners for the permission to
use their land for these “minutemen” retention basins
must be revenue neutral to the general citizens of the
state.

• Like our European friends addressing flood mitigation at a

watershed approach level, watershed associations should
be formed consisting of the communities and citizens
within that watershed. These associations must be
representative bodies that can determine methods for
raising revenue to pay for any reimbursement plan that is
developed to ensure that land owners are not financially
penalized for having the possibility of having some
portion of their land flooded for several weeks in the
spring of the year, every 15-20 years.

• It is recommended that these land owners should benefit

each year for agreeing to have these “minutemen”
retention basins located on their land. This could be done
by a property tax relief that again would be covered by
8. Reimbursements (Continued)
• In those years that flooding does occur, these
land owners would receive a financial payment
from the watershed association to make up for
the lost production revenue, lost due to the
deliberate flooding of their land to protect the
communities downstream. Also, any additional
damage to the land that occurs during this
deliberate flooding should also be covered in
some equitable fashion.

• The watershed associations should perceive this

request for raised revenue as a form of
insurance with the higher fees being borne by
those having the higher risks had a flood
occurred. However, all citizens living within this
watershed should also contribute to this
revenue fund to help protect their quality of life
issues associated within the community in
9. Required Water Flow Control Hardware items, vendors,
contractors and remote control features needed for this
“minutemen” retention basin approach.

• The simplicity of the design features associated with the

development and integration of these “minutemen”
retention basins into the natural topographical features of
the Cedar River Watershed allows for a moderate cost to
the citizens of this watershed.

• Numerous small business contractors will have the

capability on day 1 to compete for these installation
contracts. Farmers that may have access to a backhoe
will be able to install these retention basis features,
perhaps on their own farms!

• The new electronic hardware items required are currently

“off the shelf” type of items that may only need to be
packaged in a container for protection from the
environment. Commonality of these special hardware
items also allows for a moderate cost to the citizens of
this watershed. These electronic hardware/software items
can be design integrated, packaged and produced by
2. Continued

• Reusable water control concrete bulkhead items across

the numerous retention basin locations allows for these
component items to be built off-site and hauled to the
particular site.
• Water control gates (or shut off valves) as a major
component of this retention basin concept. The design
integration of this water control gate function into a
concrete culvert-type design and manufacturing process
also shows great promise in the cost containment of
these integrated water gate features. An Iowa concrete
products company has participated with counsel on this
design.

• Earlier in this proposal, Figure 3-1 showed a typical

integration of a “minuteman” retention basin in to the
upper Cedar Watershed with a levee system already
provided by the existing drainage structure. Figure 9-1
shows more design detail on the type of prebuilt
component items needed at each retention basin.
Figure 9-2
2. Continued

• Additional features of the component that integrates the

water control gate feature into a modified concrete
culvert-type design is shown in Figure 9-3. It is proposed
that only one or two sizes of this component will be
needed by having adaptable features in other parts.

• Figure 9-4 shows additional design detail and defines the

electronic-type components needed to make the water
gate remote controllable. Similar design features are
already in use and were discussed earlier in section 4 of
this proposal and shown in Figure 4-3.

• Figure 9-5 is an example of the numerous types of water

control gates that can be purchased from a number of
vendors on the international market.

• Numerous Iowa concrete contractors and suppliers are

also available to compete and build the proposed
components shown in Figure 9-1.
2. Definition and estimated cost of a “feasibility
confirmation” study regarding this
“minutemen” retention basin concept for flood
mitigation in the Cedar River Watershed.

(Commentary: Within the last ten years or less,

significant developments in hydrology technology
science, LiDAR watershed topography mapping detail and
accuracy, adapted computer software and watershed
hydrology modeling, NEXRAD Doppler weather radar
rainfall measurement sites already installed in the
eastern Iowa area (and not fully used within its
capabilities currently), cell phone site coverage, and off-
the-shelf remote control system hardware items make
the technology risk in this approach almost nil. The
problems of this approach may well be more in the areas
of “political will” and how fair the cost and impact of this
installation is perceived by the citizens bearing the cost
of this flood risk mitigation effort)
2. Continued
The hydrology department at the University of Iowa
would use this study opportunity to do the following
tasks:
1) Propose a network control system to allow the remote control
of these numerous retention basins and field-tile drainage area
water gates and estimate the projected design and
development costs of this system.

2) Provide cost and design related information for the U of I

Automatic Rainfall Monitoring System hardware components to
be purchased for use in the Cedar River watershed. Also,
calibrating the NEXRAD system for the watershed.

3) Provide a design approach and the estimated cost of the

calibrating the new hydrology modeling developed for the Cedar
River watershed.

4) Provide some consulting counsel to other contractors

including the Iowa DNR.

5) An estimated performance schedule is required for each

element of their cognizance in the actual final design.
2. Continued

• The Iowa DNR would provide a quick look risk assessment

of locating the required number of acre-feet of water
storage in the upstream watershed. The Iowa DNR would
also estimate the cost of developing the retention basin
locations and the mapping of these retention basins and
the listing of the level of water storage of each separate
basin site.

• The Cedar Rapids Watershed Subcommittee, under the

counsel of Rebuild Iowa committee member, Bill Bywater
and Senate leader of the Iowa Senate Rebuild Iowa
Committee, Senator Rob Hogg, is to collect contractor
estimates for the design and manufacturing of the
several reusable components defined in brief in Figure 9-
1 of this proposal.

• The Cedar Rapids Watershed Subcommittee would also

obtain contractor estimates for the actual “typical”
2. Continued
• The Cedar Rapids Watershed Subcommittee is
to collect the initial “quick look” study cost and
provide this cost summary to both Committee
Chairman Bill Bywater and Senator Rob Hogg
for further action with our state and community
leaders including Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, Cedar
Falls, Mason City and others.

• This “Feasibility Confirmation” study will also

provide greater resolution of design detail and
related costs of the total actual Cedar River
Watershed design and installation costs of this
“minuteman” retention basin.

• A target cost goal for this “Feasibility

Confirmation” quick look study is set at
$10,000.
2. What is an initial “quick look” estimate of
this total program to have it designed,
implemented and on-line ready to go?
Rough “ballpark” cost estimates for all phases of
this concept including:

1) Design, calibration, construction and implementation

costs.
2) Year to year operating costs
3) Year to year maintenance costs
4) Cost of escrow account to cover the yearly incentive
payments to the landowners for allowing the retention
basins on their land
(i.e. property tax relief on those areas)
5) Cost of escrow account to cover the crop revenue loss
for the year when it becomes necessary to flood the
retention basin sites.
6) Bonding costs for the purchase of 50-year bonds at 3%
investment return to pay for the initial design,
construction and implementation costs. (One time
bonded expense).
7) Total “ballpark” cost estimate summary.
11. Continued:
(1.1) Detailed designs defined and estimated
costs listed:
a) Hydrology, modeling, model calibration, NEXRAD
rainfall sensor/area calibration, LiDAR mapping study and
integration, network control and management system
design and simulation evaluations, cell phone control and
management system.
Estimate: $4,000,000

b) Watergate design (incorporated with the concrete

culvert design)
Estimate: $ 10,000 (includes concrete
mold frames)

c) Remote control / activation hardware design (tile fields

included)
Estimate: $21,000

d) Design of concrete bulkheads (Consider 5 different

11. Continued:
(1.2) Construction costs including purchase costs of all
materials supplied. (Average cost per “minuteman”
retention basin)
Including: Controller, water level sensor, cellular phone, modem
solar energy system, battery, water gate actuator system
(motor, gear, reduction unit), concrete water gate, concrete
bulkhead, adapter sleeve, security fencing, debris guard, field
tile water gate, security and debris protection.
Retention basin:
Watergate controller & actuating system $
4,300
Concrete water-gate, qty (1) $ 1,500
Concrete bulkhead, qty (1) $ 850
Security & debris protection $ 600
Installation costs $
4,000
Water level sensor, qty (1) $
400
Basin Total:
$11,650
(1.3) Total Summary of all one-time cost
items:

(1) Material costs & installation costs for qty:

5200 separate “minutemen” retention basin complex…
$60,580,000

(2) Material costs & installation costs for qty:

3200 Field tile gate units…
$19,840,000

(3) Hydrology design expenses (See section 1.1(a)

$4,000,000

(4) Watergate design (See section 1.1(b) ) $

10,000

(5) Remote control design/communication link design

(See section 1.1(c) ) $ 21,000

(6) Concrete bulkheads design (See section 1.1(d) )

$ 14,000
11. Continued:
(2) Year to year operating costs
$50,000
(3) Year to year maintenance costs $
5,000
(4) Cost of escrow account to cover yearly incentive
to participating landowners:
i.e. 239,000 acres in retention basins, in watershed
- 23,040 acres in wetlands, in watershed
216,200 acres eligible for incentive payments
(216,200 acres) ($5 / acre incentive) =
$1,081,000

(5) Cost of escrow account to cover drop revenue loss for

$345,920
years of flooded retention basins. Probability of flood risk
(500 year flood
prevented is considered here:
yearly escrow payment)

500 year flood risk would require that all 216,200 acres of
retention
basins to be flooded and lost to farming.
11. Continued:
A more conservative risk mitigation decision taken is to
use a flood
recurrence frequency of 200 years instead of the stated
500 year flood levels.

Census data shows approximately 516,000 citizens in the

watershed.

69,184,000
(516,000 citizens ) = 0.67 cost per year per
watershed citizen
(200 year risk cycle) or $345,920 per year watershed
cost.
11. Continued:
(5) Continued

30-year flood risk level. This would require the use of

25% of the acres
in the retention basins.

The crop production loss would be

(25%) (216,200 acres) (80 bushels-acre) ($4.00 - bushel)

equals: $17,296,000

Yearly costs for this risk mitigation is as follows:

($17,296,000) = $1.12 per year per citizen
(516,000 citizens) (30 year risk cycle)
$576,533
(30-year flood

escrow payment)
11. Continued:
(5) Continued

30-year flood risk level. This would require the use of

25% of the acres
in the retention basins.

The crop production loss would be

(25%) (216,200 acres) (80 bushels-acre) ($4.00 - bushel)

equals: $17,296,000

Yearly costs for this risk mitigation is as follows:

($17,296,000) = $1.12 per year per citizen
(516,000 citizens) (30 year risk cycle)
$576,533
(30-year flood

escrow payment)
11. Continued:
(6)
Bonding expense for the purchase of 30-year bonds at
3% interest to pay for the one time costs of this flood
mitigation concept of $85,000,000.

Total loan interest expense: $ 44,010,834

Total amount paid: $129,000,834

or $4,300,028 per year for

30 years, watershed cost

or $8.33 per year per citizen

in watershed for 30 years
• Continued: Total “ball park” cost estimate summary:

(1) Design & installation costs $85,000,000

(2) 30-year bond & total interest expense $44,010,834
30-year total debt of $129,000,834
30-year Bonds sold @ 3%
Yearly expense for 30 years $4,300,028
or $8.33 per year per
citizen in watershed for 30 years.

(3) Yearly on-going expenses $2,058,453

or $4.00 per year per citizen in
watershed on-going.
per watershed citizen

$1.03 per month per watershed $12.33 per year per citizen in
watershed citizen for 30
years. for 30 years… and then it
becomes:
Cost per month

$4.00 per year per watershed

citizen. 0.33 per month per citizen continuous forward

Loan Start 30 years Future years

$

Time
1) Proposed Schedule of milestones leading to a fully operational
“Minutemen” retention basin network for flood control and Water Quality
Control on the Cedar River.
Milestone

[1] The passage of legislative authority guidelines for the formation of specific
major river watershed associations across the state with bonding authority
that allows use of the State of Iowa bond rating level, but imposing these
expenses only on the citizens of each respective watershed association.
(This was done in Europe in Germany and Hungary. We may be able to
use their statutes as a guide in the formation of our own policies.)

[2] Formation of the Cedar River Watershed Association with representative

members from across the watershed as specified by the statutes defined in
milestone [1] above.
[3] The Iowa Legislature and executive branch to designate funding for the
conversion of additional land, at the bequest of the owners, into “wetlands.”
There is a one time re-numeration to the owner for this classification change.
These new wetland acres will greatly help in the improved management of the
watershed at all levels of concern.
Milestone

[4] Have the legislature recognize that the “Minutemen” Retention Basin
Network System also provides additional tools to be used throughout the
watershed for improved Water Quality management planning and
implementation as well as additional tools to be used to control the amount of
sediment within run-off water. These tools will allow the sources of water quality
contaminants such as bacteria, nitrates, etc. to be traced and identified. These tools
would also be available for tracking the sources of various sediments in the run-off
water. A recent survey of damage from the year 2008 flooding gives extreme
evidence that significant improvements are needed within the watershed with regard
to poor land and water management practices that are allowing contaminants and
sediment at various sites to reach unhealthy levels for the contaminants and the
sediment content in the run-off water is causing increased costs to the
management of watershed waterways and structures all along the river.
Because of these poor land/water management practices by some elements
within the watershed, the legislature needs to consider the development of
punitive laws that can be used to fine and thereby subsequently change these
poor land management practices. A set of punitive laws were created in European
countries such as Germany and Hungary with increasing success in stopping
poor management practices. These laws help foster a spirit of teamwork among the
various elements living together within a watershed ecology.
Milestone

[5] Funds identified for Feasibility Confirmation Study. Use partial funds to
develop cost budget for the total program.
[6] Sale of Watershed Association Bonds to raise required design, calibration,
simulation and implementation
[7] Identification of partial, initial funding to jump start the hydrology study and
modeling development.
[8] Hardware Component design completed.
[9] Basin locations, configurations and water storage capability determined.
[10] Installation of the remote control water gates and other sensors.
[11] Integrate and test the complete network system.