The Rio de Flag flows at a steady pace while the snow melts from the recent warm weather. This part of the river flows just north of the NAU campus. Bryan Kinkade / The Lumberjack

The $60-85 million Rio de Flag Flood Control Project that will divert the course of the Rio de Flag could prevent a severe flood from hitting Flagstaff and leaving parts of the city under up to six feet of water and inaccessible for days.

The city approved the project — which has already cost Flagstaff $10 million — but is continuing to pursue additional funding options and looking for ways to save money. The federal government has already spent $11 million and will pay for 65 percent of the project.

City officials, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have been working together on this project for several years to prepare for the 100-year flood that could cause $450 million in damage to 1,500 structures in Flagstaff.

The project’s approval has sparked controversy among local residents, business owners and members of the community.

The running total and inconsistent price estimates worry Tim Mahon, a junior civil engineering major, who said “the longer it takes to complete this project, the more it will cost us; they may say $85 million, but we don’t have any idea how much it will actually cost in the end.”

The Friends of the Rio de Flag (The Friends), a group against the flood project, define themselves as promoting the Rio de Flag’s stream system as a unique and valuable natural resource, an asset and amenity to the city of Flagstaff and the surrounding community.

Collis Lovely, who represents The Friends, has 35 years of experience in floodplain and stormwater management and said he believes a better solution is to utilize an open channel instead of undergrounding.

“The USACOE disclosed it could not share the cost of bridges,” Lovely said. “And land acquisition … is the reason the original open channel design was changed to an underground storm drain.”

The group wants to keep the river above ground as a public resource and city amenity for the scenic, recreational, and educational values and wildlife habitat.

Upon completion of the flood control project, results will include a 72-acre detention basin, three new bridges and 2,200 feet of concrete flood wall.

Tiffan Miller, project manager, said the benefits of the project outweigh the costs.

“There’s a lot more benefit to the community, like the property values going up, the redevelopment and creating jobs,” Miller said.

The USACOE estimates the impact of a 100-year flood in Flagstaff would result in $93 million in lost jobs and declining revenue. A potential flood would cause power outages, fires, contaminated floodwaters, and damages to vehicles, buildings and homes. Miller said USACOE determined the benefits of the completion of this project were high enough to justify the cost.

“This is a USACOE project. … We [in Flagstaff] are responsible to get everything out of their way,” Miller said.

Supporters of the project, like Cameron Ragan, a junior civil engineering major, said the upgrades are important to the city.

“I think it’s necessary in the long run because it will protect the buildings that are existing in the floodplain instead of requiring them to upgrade, which is really expensive,” Ragan said. “The businesses downtown have to pay enormous fees, taxes and insurance dues because of their location in the floodplain; this project would eliminate those expenses.”

Ragan said it is unlikely NAU would be severely damaged in the event of a flood, but it would be a possibility.

“It would have to be a really serious flood to destroy NAU buildings, but a lot of students living in surrounding areas — especially between Franklin and Butler — those areas would be totally damaged,” Ragan said. “If it flooded badly here, people would have to get evacuated, property would be destroyed; they’d probably be homeless for a while. It would be devastating for those in the areas.”

Ragan said issues with flooding in the downtown area have caused damages and disruptions in the past.

“Even minor rainstorms have caused that area to flood enough for people to kayak there, especially by the dip on Leroux Street,” Ragan said.

In 1983, FEMA declared the Rio de Flag area a flood zone, which required developers to buy flood insurance or build above the flood zone depth. One-fourth of the floodplain is zoned as commercial; the rest of the area is residential. The Rio de Flag feeds into the Little Colorado River and is an ephemeral stream and tributary of the San Francisco Wash. It lacks a year-round baseflow, running only as a result of melting snow or rain.

Sara Wilkinson, a sophomore biology major, said she thinks a flooding disaster is possible.

“I don’t know the outlay of the area, but I could see it flooding, especially from the San Francisco Peaks,” Wilkinson said. “So much snow is already there, and it’s going to melt, and it’s got to go somewhere.”

According to USACOE, there have been 18 recorded floods in the Rio de Flag area since 1888, and flooding may occur during any season and more than once a year. The largest flood in terms of volume was in 1993 and resulted in claims to FEMA totaling $200,000. The floods in 1983 and 1993 were categorized as 25-year floods, which are less severe than 100-year floods. Those who oppose the Rio de Flag Flood Control Project said there is a much more efficient and cost-effective way to control the Rio de Flag.

“The project is essentially to bury the river,” Mahon said. “I don’t think it’s a good idea; there are a lot of cheaper alternatives.”

Miller said the benefits to the entire community outweigh the high costs.

“It’s very expensive,” Miller said. “It’s $60 million; that’s crazy. But we’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits in the long run. … It would help everybody.”

Mahon said he thinks the project’s cost is inflated and not focused on flooding prevention.

“I don’t think the project has anything to do with protecting students or residents,” Mahon said. “I think that it has more to do with job creation and business stimulation.”