Laserfiche WebLink
<br />accomplish from a practical viewpoint not only in Colorado, but all <br />over the United States. This sounds like an excellent principle, <br />but the actual application is impossible to follow in many cases. <br />Periodically, various cities throughout the United States suffer <br />considerable damages from floods. To eliminate further floods, only I <br />two alternatives are possible; namely, to move the city or to con- <br />struct flood protection works. The report does not state that <br />further flood protection works shonld not be constructed. but does ~ <br />state that in the event of federal participation in such works then <br />the beneficiaries, if identifiable, should pay the full cost. The <br />repayment cost as a.matter of economic philosophy is difficult to <br />argue with. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Any comments on flood control? As we know, we have <br />been busy delineating flood plain areas and making recommendations to <br />various zoning authorities up and do\VD the Platte River since the <br />flood of 1965. That may help in the future, but I think that they <br />are clearly off base here and 1 think we ought to make this stronger. <br />1 think it is an unworkable conclusion. <br /> <br />Any other thoughts? All right, continue then on the basis of that <br />conclusion substance. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: The main thrust of the recommendations concerning flood <br />prevention is that flood plains should be delineated and steps taken <br />to insure that no incompatible use is made of these flood plains. <br />.1 believe that this recommendation is extremely sound and should be <br />strongly supported. However, 1 have reservations as to whether or <br />not the federal government should be phased out as far as the con- <br />struction of future flood control facilities are concerned. This is <br />what the report really contemplates. <br /> <br />The ~riginal philosophy of Congress on flood control was that floods <br />cause widespread property damages and a considerable loss of lives. <br />The loss of business and property creates a considerable loss to the <br />federal government in that such things constitute tax deductions. <br />For instance, in Colorado there were deducted millions of dollars in <br />terms of tax deductions on both the state and federal returns as the I <br />result of the 1965 flood. The federal government believes that it <br />has been more than getting its money back as a result of stopping <br />this type of damage. However, you can't deduct a human life on a tax <br />return. As a matter of fact, nobody has tried to put a value on life <br />and the fact that human lives are lost as a result of floods has been <br />ignored from a monetary view. The economists can't figure that out <br /> <br />-13- <br />