Red River ravage

The flood of 1997 set new high-water markers throughout Grand Forks and East Grand Forks. A multi-phase, $400 million flood control project aims to keep the Red River of the North and Red Lake River under control.

by Clair Urbain

A panoramic view of the Grand Forks, North Dakota, area reveals a beautiful vista. The flat, fertile loam soils yield potatoes, sugar beets, wheat, corn and soybeans for as far as the eye can see. The Red and Red Lake Rivers join near the Grand Cities’ downtown area, funneling water drained from the rich farmland northward into Canada’s Lake Winnipeg.

But in the spring of 1997, this vast stretch of prairie, with its bucolic flowing rivers, turned into a torrent of disaster for Grand Forks and East Grand Forks, which is on the Minnesota side of the river.

Record snowfall, record floods
The winter of ’96 and ’97 was particularly severe in the Red River Valley. Starting before Thanksgiving and ending just after April Fool’s Day, eight major blizzards dumped almost 100" of snow on the region. Flood forecasters at the National Weather Service (NWS) predicted record-breaking flood dangers.

However, their predictions were at best conservative and at worst, so far off there was no chance the towns could prepare for what was to come.

Both cities began sandbagging because the series of dikes and levees already in place would be no match for this flood. The rivers’ normal flood stage is 28' and it reached that quickly by April 4, when the city was hit by the final blizzard of the season. The NWS predicted a crest at 49' within two to three weeks.

According to news reports, the North Dakota National Guard dumped sand on the river’s ice to gain solar energy to speed melting. A slow melt, especially with a river that flows northward, would surely be held back by ice jams that would make flooding even more devastating. With such a flat topography, any breach in the dike would send floodwater rushing throughout the town – for miles around.

And that’s what happened.

The NWS used its flood prediction models to peg the rivers’ 49' crest and the towns diligently built emergency dikes to handle up to 52'. But the amount of water from the heavy snowfall and rapid melt were too much for the predictive models, and Grand Forks was besieged with rising flood waters that crested at 54.11', which is 26' above flood stage, on April 21. At the flood’s crest, nearly 90 percent of the East Grand Forks and 75 percent of the Grand Forks residents were evacuated. Many fled with few possessions as floodwater rose almost 1" per hour and took down dikes and spilled over levees in their path.

With city services paralyzed, downtown buildings were flooded and electrical fires broke out. Firefighters couldn’t reach burning buildings, and ironically, although the buildings were surrounded by water, not a drop of it could be used to control the blazes. In residential areas, only the tops of some houses were visible.

Experts claim this was a once-in-200-years flooding event, with 95 percent of the homes and businesses in Grand Forks damaged. News reports pegged the per capita damage at $40,000. With such extensive damage, implementing a new flood control plan made economic sense.

After the flood
As water receded, residents, with the help of volunteers, took to reclaiming what was left of their property. Reports indicate that more than 224 million tons of debris and ruined property were trucked to landfills. The process of rebuilding Grand Forks and East Grand Forks had begun.

The U.S Army Corps of Engineers assessed the damage and came up with a master plan to prevent the possibility of a massive flooding event ever causing such extensive property damage again. Its nearly $400 million, six-year plan has literally redefined the cities, moving dikes and installing levee systems capable of handling high water events as devastating as the great flood of 1997.

When the project is finished, contractors will have completed four phases of levee upgrade on each side of the river, along with multiple water diversion projects, lift stations and utility relocations.

“Multiple flood control projects on both sides of the river are included in the Corp’s protection plan. We are the general contractor for the Grand Forks Phase Three levee project. Phases One and Two of the levee project are near completion. Our work on Phase Three will tie in to those previous projects,” says Scott Kringstad, Construction Engineers’ senior project engineer. He is leading the construction efforts of Phase Three, which began in Spring 2004 and should be finished in 2006.

The project consists of removing older flood protection work that is closer to the normal flow of the river and moving it back and to higher ground in Grand Forks. “The new system will provide a greater level of protection compared with past levees and temporary dikes and will be capable of handling much more water,” he says.

“Right now, we have two work crews building the pump stations. As the project continues, the work force dedicated to this project will grow to six crews and nearly 100 workers.

The total project entails building 3,300' of concrete flood wall, two street closure structures, three pump stations, four gated outlets and other concrete structures. The most noticeable feature of the project will be the construction of huge earthen levees requiring over half a million cubic yards of material. Rehabilitation of two of the city’s parks will also be completed,” says Kringstad.

“This project is challenging in many ways. It has moved whole neighborhoods out of the flood plain and requires us to work with more than one municipality,” says Ryan Johnson, project quality control and safety manager. ”We work with the Army Corps of Engineers plus the city, county and townships, as well as many other government agencies.”

“We must coordinate our work with all of these groups plus the other contractors working on this project. While the Army Corps of Engineers is the official owner of this project until it is complete, we must also work with the city on issues that aren’t totally described in plans or when it comes to tying old infrastructure in with the new,” he says.

In addition to managing the many facets of the Phase Three project, Construction Engineers is self-performing the concrete work and coordinating subcontractors to complete dirt work, paving, underground utility and storm drain installation/relocation and specialty trades work.

Big jobs in tight spots
Practically every area near the relocated flood control system is developed commercial and residential property. That means work crews must work closely with residents and businesses to minimize property damage while working efficiently.

“All along the project, we are working with residents, many of whom have their houses in close proximity to flood protection work. We do our best to meet their wishes and strive to minimize property damage and other inconveniences. The people of Grand Forks understand the importance of these flood control projects and the work we do. We are working to make the city safer with as little public impact as possible,” says Johnson.

Divide and conquer
“The Army Corps of Engineers has divided the Phase Three construction into four sections or reaches. The job is divided into smaller sections for greater attention to detail and the ability to move from one part of the project to another as time, weather and crews allow. We also must construct new flood protection and utilities without taking existing flood protection or utilities out of service for long periods of time. Ideally, in the event of a high water situation, the new system will be in place before the old one is removed and demolished,” says Johnson.

For example, older storm sewers must be connected with the new system so the storm sewer penetrates the floodwall only once instead of four times. Some of these connections are 25' below the surface, so additional safety precautions are needed, as well as a timely changeover so storm water control isn’t affected.

“Safety is a top priority on any Army Corps of Engineers project, and each section of the project must have a written safety plan that complies with OSHA standards or the Corps of Engineers standard, whichever is more stringent,” says Johnson, who is in charge of developing and safety plans.

“This project stretches through many neighborhoods in the city. The changing scope of the project requires a variety of safety plans. We have the ability to adapt procedures as work progresses and needs change,” says Johnson.

The concrete flood wall forms are massive and, once in place, must be climbed upon by workers before, during and after the pour. To minimize fall dangers, Johnson and the work crews have devised a way to put fall protection systems on the forms before they are hoisted into place.

The flood wall construction uses decorative forms that imitate rock and brick construction. “These are large forms, and we have to be careful of the layout to assure the forms are put together so the face design matches up to give the proper exterior finish. This is just one of the many cases where we must work to provide a quality product while maintaining a safe jobsite,” says Johnson.

“This project entails 19,000 cu. yd. of poured concrete. It’s a large-scale job and requires excessive safety precautions. For this application, installing fall protection this way is very efficient and makes fall protection available right away. The more work you can do on the ground, the better,” Johnson says.

City streets and bridges
The project specifications also require that road and bridge closings be kept to a minimum. Safety is a major concern when construction crews and equipment interface with the general public.

“Many of the structures traverse or run parallel to roadways which must be kept passable during construction activities. A street closure structure planned for Minnesota Avenue will require us to temporarily close the Point Bridge, a major thoroughfare that connects Grand Forks and East Grand Forks. We must work safely and efficiently to ensure the safety of workers as well as the traveling public,” says Johnson.

Published in the September/October 2004 issue of Contractor Tools and Supplies magazine.

back to top