Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 153-020B5-00; Des Moines Water Works
PW ID# Multiple Project Worksheets; McMullen/Saylorville Water Treatment Plants
Citation: FEMA-1763-DR-IA, Des Moines Water Works, McMullen and Saylorville Water Treatment Plants, Multiple PWs
Reference: Facility Eligibility
Summary: As a result of the severe storms and flooding in 2008 , the Raccoon and Des Moines Rivers flooded in the vicinity of the McMullen and Saylorville Water Treatment Plants (WTPs) owned and operated by the Des Moines Water Works (Applicant). The flooding caused varying degrees of erosion of the river banks near five collector wells at the McMullen WTP and near one collector well at the Saylorville WTP. FEMA prepared six PWs for a total amount of $7,595,367 to fund the restoration and stabilization of the eroded banks near the 6 wells. Subsequently and in response to the Applicant’s request for a change in the scope of work of the PWs, FEMA deobligated the six PWs because the scope of work under each PW is the stabilization of natural, unmaintained river embankments.
In its first appeal, the Applicant stated that the river banks were improved by the installation of the collector wells and were maintained. The Applicant also stated that an immediate threat existed to the collector well system as the result of the event. The FEMA Regional Administrator denied the appeal stating that the natural river bank does not meet the definition of a facility; the Applicant did not identify any damage to eligible facilities; and the Applicant did not demonstrate that an immediate threat to improved property existed as a direct result of the declared event.
In its second appeal, the Applicant reiterates its position stated in the first appeal and provides numerous affidavits to support its contention that the river banks are improved and maintained and an immediate threat of damage to the collector well system existed as the result of the event.
Issues: 1. Are the river banks in the vicinity of the six wells improved and maintained natural features?
2. Did an immediate threat to life, health, safety, or improved property exist?
Findings: 1. No. The natural characteristics of the river banks were not changed as the result of the installation of the wells.
Rationale: Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §§ 206.201(c) Definitions, 206.221(c) Definitions, 206.225 Emergency Work, 206.226 Restoration of Damaged Facilities