Systemic Disenfranchisement During Major Floods: A Look at Southeast Michigan

SYSTEMIC DISENFRANCHISEMENT DURING MAJOR FLOODS

A LOOK AT SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN

Adapted from a presentation given by Julie Arbit and Abha Panda Edited for publication by Victoria Fisher

The notion that floods are events that need to be dealt with retroactively has permeated American infrastructure and development. Current investments in levees and floodwalls focus more on combating flood surges as they occur, rather than preventing flooding from occurring in the first place. Yet, as climate change catalyzes the effects of floods further, it is possible–and monetarily feasible –to preemptively mitigate flooding through neighborhood development and reduction of socioeconomic disparities instead of bearing the brunt of it in our current, aging built environment.

The association between race and flood vulnerability, in particular, remains a pressing issue as we look at changing infrastructure and development patterns. Lowincome and minority communities are disproportionately affected by extreme flood events every year, an inequality that is predicted to grow worse as the frequency and magnitude of floods increase. In the last decade, 20% of flood insurance dollars were paid in ZIP codes where at least one-quarter of residents are African American, even though these ZIP codes account for only 13% of the U.S. population.

Lapses in government aid and infrastructure are often the main drivers of these kinds of socioeconomic disparities. Socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods are frequently built in low-lying areas with high amounts of impervious surface - roads, parking lots, pavement - and limited green space, which makes it difficult to withstand rising water levels. Yet, flood mitigation infrastructure such as levees and floodwalls are usually allocated to protect areas with higher property values, leaving low-income neighborhoods still more vulnerable to flooding. Even in flooded areas, key disaster relief aid continues to be distributed based on economic damage thresholds. Because low-income households often claim property and belongings that are worth less on the market, damage thresholds prevent lowincome households from receiving critical aid. During Hurricane Harvey, two thirds of low-income households that were affected by floods were identified as not meeting the standards necessary to qualify for government funding through the Housing and Urban Development Department.

For those who don’t own homes, the effects of flooding can be even worse. Typical renter’s insurance doesn’t cover expenses incurred by floods, and while most homeowners must be legally informed about their flood risk and required to purchase flood insurance, the same is not true for tenants. Many congressional efforts to mandate flood risk disclosure and improve flood insurance for tenants have failed because of a fear that such measures would reduce property values for cities and states. Georgia is currently the only state that requires landlords to inform tenants of flood risk in cases of extreme flooding. Those unable to prove ownership of their land can have an even more difficult time receiving help. Heirs’ Property, for example, is a land ownership system where land is informally passed down between generations. This practice is more common for minority communities in the U.S. with 41% of Blackowned land in the SE United States informally owned in this way. Yet, land owned through Heirs’ Property is often not recognized by the government, resulting in key lapses in government aid during natural disasters. During Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 20,000 property owners were denied federal assistance because they couldn’t show clear titles to their property, despite owning the land through an Heirs’ Property system.

Floods in Southeast Michigan

Systemic disenfranchisement during major floods has raised many concerns for Southeast Michigan, a region which experiences stark racial and economic disparities. Major floods in this area are usually “pluvial” in nature, occurring because of large precipitation events that overwhelm stormwater infrastructure and cause surface and flash floods. Several key factors position Southeast Michigan as particularly susceptible to flood related disparities. Firstly, many neighborhoods in the region remain severely socioeconomically disadvantaged. The poverty level in Detroit is 33.4%, according to the latest census, three times higher than the national average of 11.8%. Disadvantaged neighborhoods also have high levels of imperviousness which can increase the likelihood of flash flooding. In Detroit, 42% of land cover is made up of impervious surfaces even though water quality degradation has been noted in areas that have as little as 10% imperviousness. Subsidized housing locations and low-income households are often concentrated in these areas, making these neighborhoods particularly vulnerable to floods (Map 1).

These disparities in infrastructure and land use have long reaching historical roots, which may make them even more difficult to overcome. Land use patterns dating as far back as the 1800s highlight how richer neighborhoods have been traditionally built in more floodadverse locations. In the Clinton River watershed, for instance, wealthier communities enjoy much more well-drained soils than lower income communities like Pontiac, which was built on primarily savanna and swamp habitat (Map 2).

With climate change projected to make urban flooding worse in the coming decades in Southeast Michigan, it is imperative to acknowledge and address these disparities in infrastructure and development.

What can we do?

Meaningful mitigation strategies would help combat socioeconomic inequalities in the long run if they gain the necessary public and governmental support. While we’re still in the midst of aggregating and exploring data, we’ve identified some intermediary key opportunities in regions like Metro Detroit, where inequitable water management is plaguing countless households. The first key is in the approach. As we’ve explored, communities in Southeast Michigan and across the country are highly varied down to the household level in terms of risk, resources, and access. In fact, even census tract data is often too broad to assess where neighborhood level investment is needed most. Large scale water management is not suitable for cities with high socioeconomic disparity, especially when considering the historical and climate change factors that tend to widen those gaps even further.

Once key areas of need are identified, investing in more flood resistant infrastructure and providing stable housing in lowincome neighborhoods can have beneficial effects in the long-run. Green stormwater infrastructure includes green or blue roofs, permeable or porous materials, and the use of bioswales or rain gardens for infiltration. Some of these technologies are relatively cheap to install and maintain, and will certainly save money in the long-run in terms of flood prevention and mitigation. A “sponge city” is a method of flood management and ecological restoration already gaining popularity and traction in urban design and landscape architecture. Increased access to loans, aid, and national flood insurance policy in areas of need can also help reduce socioeconomic disparities in lowincome communities which often face barriers to these forms of support. ■

▲ Map 1. Impervious surfaces near Detroit overlaid with census tract poverty data and subsidized housing locations. A overlap of high imperviousness and subsidized housing locations can be seen.

▲ Map 2. A depiction of 1800 Land Cover in the Clinton River Watershed overlaid with census tract poverty data (red lines) and subsidized housing (red circles). Wealthy communities to the South and West - West Bloomfield, Commerce, Waterford - enjoy much more well-drained soil than Pontiac, which overlaps a fair amount of savanna and swamp, without the resources to accommodate the influxes of water.

---

Julie Arbit is a graduate research assistant for the Center for Social Solutions. A graduate student in the School of Environmental and Sustainability, her work focuses on water access and equity and the future of work.

Abha Panda is an undergraduate research and communications assistant at the Center for Social Solutions. A senior in the College of LSA, she is majoring in English as well as environmental studies, contributing to the Center’s water research.