An innovative but controversial floodproof house design for homes in flood-prone areas that could potentially save millions in federal disaster aid is ready for real-world testing but the inventors still are looking for ways to pay for a prototype.
The Winston Landlocked Floating Home, brainchild of modular-house manufacturer Winston International of Colorado, uses foam-filled tubs attached to the underside of the house and a system of telescoping stilts to keep it afloat when water levels rise. But the design has never floated outside the Pacific Testing Laboratories computer in Seattle, where the house's performance was simulated in 20-foot floods and 65 mph winds.
The model performed admirably, according to the lab report.
Ron R. Campbell, Winston's chief architect, and his colleagues have asked the Federal Emergency Management Agency for approval, test guidelines, and $600,000, to test a real, one-story house in controlled flood conditions. They have yet to receive either approval or funding.
The house looks like any other manufactured home. But a sunken concrete foundation anchors four segmented metal poles that are normally tucked away between the foundation and the house's floor, and the house rests in its foundation on specially-treated wooden pilings.
During a flood, as little as an inch of water trapped under the house would force the poles to extend, holding the building in place while the foam tubs keep it afloat. Built-in stabilizers would act as shock absorbers.
In the meantime, utilities would disconnect automatically, and the house would run on its own power and water.
After the flood, the poles would retract and the house would settle back down into its foundation.
The company estimates that a floodproof 1,500-square-foot manufactured house and attached garage would cost $10,000 to $12,000 more than a standard house.
Company officials are upset that FEMA has yet to give any help toward construction of a prototype, noting that the agency is charged with providing "financial assistance for ... planning and carrying out activities designed to reduce flood damage to structures," according to the National Flood Insurance Reform Act, passed in September 1994.
"It's bureaucratic foot-dragging," Campbell said.
Officials at FEMA argue that they are encouraging the development of technologies like the floating house. But they say the agency is limited in what it can do, given recent disasters such as last year's California floods. Other projects have taken precedence.
"They can go ahead and build their house anywhere they can get permission, but it's a proprietary technology; research and development is their responsibility," said Clifford Oliver, one of the agency's senior engineers. "Why should taxpayers foot the bill?"
In addition, Oliver said, the design has safety flaws. Floatation "is based on a mechanical process, the extension of these stilts," he said. "Every mechanical process has a built-in failure rate. How can a house depending on such a process be as safe as one that doesn't?"
Oliver said his agency fears people living in such houses would refuse to leave them during a flood, making rescue efforts much more difficult should the design fail.
Campbell countered that the system was designed by professionals using time-tested methods and weather-protected materials.
"The interiors of the (telescoping) piers are permanently sealed and watertight, filled with lightweight, environmentally safe lubricating oil," Campbell wrote in response to Oliver's critique. "They are designed with maximum safety factors."
The warranty on such a house would include periodic maintenance by Winston technicians, Campbell said.
With California in another rainy season, any plan to prevent flood damage might seem relevant. Last spring's heavy rains hit every county in the state, causing more than $425 million worth of damage, nearly $8 million of it in Santa Clara County, FEMA estimates show.
But Campbell and his colleagues at Winston still face a significant hurdle in getting federal support for their design even if they fund their own tests. When it comes to flood damage control, FEMA's strategy is to get people to move to higher ground.
This strategy has sound rationale, said Jeffrey Mount, a geologist and flood expert at the University of California, Davis.
"If you live in a flood plain, sooner or later you're going to get flooded," Mount said. "In California, we've spent the last two hundred years trying to fight that simple fact, and all it's done is cost a lot of money, time, and human suffering."
But Winston officials would argue that such seeming practicality can be unrealistic.
Paul Winston, company president, designed the floating house after the devastating floods in the Midwest in 1993. In an interview with The New Scientist , he said, "The public needs something like this, because the government can't afford to move everybody away from the rivers."