BOARD02497

• Board Meeting Date: 7/14/1971
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

f.J.JI

I

river is lowered as has been pointed out by the
Corps representatives, the water table adjacent
to the river will drop and we feel that very
real possibilities exist that vegetation will
die. If it doesn't die as the result of the
water table being lost, some of it will be lost
through the channelization project itself. As
we pointed out, the subdivision of the land will
probably see the rest of the vegetation destroyed.

Finally, the City is concerned that the cost
benefit analysis used to justify the channel-
ization project is not broadly enough based.
MOre specifically, the channelization project is
justified by saying that the land adjacent to
the new channel will be increased in value, in
a way, it will more than offset the cost of the
channelization project itself.

We feel that this cost benefit analysis does
not take into account the points that we mentioned
earlier, the loss of open space, the loss of the
ecological habitat, the loss of tree and plant
coverage and particularly the possibility of
retaining this open space to public park and
recreation use. In other words, the cost benefit
analysis has presented the possibility that a
handful of private owners will benefit signif-
icantly by having their land increased in value
while the community as a whole may suffer in
some intangible ways to be alluded to.

I

I was curious to hear Mr. Sparks comment
that there were approximately 50 landowners who
would benefit directly from having their land
taken out of the flood plain. In return to
these 50 owners the government is prepared to
spend ~3,000,OOO and we feel that cost benefit
analysis is not broadly enough based.

Now particularly, the Council is concerned
with the statement issued by your Director,
Mr. Sparks, that there are no other alternatives
to channelization as proposed by the Corps of
Engineers. We are particularly concerned that