Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Better methods for quantifying the economic benefits of natural and cultural resources must be <br />developed, adopted, and applied, <br /> <br />THE PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES <br /> <br />The Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources <br />for Implementation Studies (known as the Principles and Guidelines) were set out by the Water <br />Resources Council in 1983 to prescribe a single federal objective of "National Economic <br />Development" in planning water resources development projects, Critics of the Principles and <br />Guidelines (and related manuals) see a bias toward structural solutions to flooding problems, and a <br />failure to properly evaluate nonstructural alternatives. The ASFPM is aware of groups that are <br />analyzing and re-evaluating the Principles and Guidelines, which are now more than 15 years old, <br />and would support efforts to update them, Definition and guidance is needed on calculating <br />environmental and cultural values, <br /> <br />. The Principles and Guidelines should be revisited, with an eye toward broadening the concept <br />of National Economic Development and refining methods for accounting for benefits. For <br />example, "prevented damage" should be counted as a benefit for nonstructural projects. In the <br />Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Congress directed this change for Corps of <br />Engineers projects and it must now be implemented. In addition, no project can offer full security <br />against all floods, Project economics must reflect the long-term catastrophic disaster costs <br />associated with project-induced development. <br /> <br />. The principles of sustainability should be incorporated into any revision to the Principles and <br />Guidelines, <br /> <br />DATA AND TECHNOLOGY <br /> <br />The passing of each flood illustrates more clearly that we are technology rich, but data poor. <br />Adequate data is vital for the decisionmaking processes that determine the most sustainable land use <br />for an area, or the most prudent mitigation project. <br /> <br />GATHERING AND STORING DATA <br /> <br />The 1988 study, Floodplain Management in the United States: An Assessment Report, emphasized <br />that there was no system for accurately and systematically estimating flood damage nationwide. That <br />lack is even more painfully obvious in 1999, No agency at the federal level has the task of defining <br />"floods," defining "damage" or accumulating flood damage data. It is not possible to evaluate a <br />program's effectiveness without measuring its results in dealing with the problem, We do not yet have <br />a good handle on addressing this, and we cannot hope to get one, without better damage data. <br /> <br />At present no single entity has the responsibility for collecting and storing data about flood- and <br />disaster-related matters. The ASFPM believes that the federal government should take responsibility <br />for collecting the kinds of data that benefit the entire nation and for which significant economies of <br />scale can be realized, such as stream gaging and flood mapping, <br /> <br />. A comprehensive, nationwide database should be established that includes information on the <br />costs of disasters, costs and benefits of mitigation measures, and other pertinent information, This <br /> <br />Association of State Floodplain Managers <br /> <br />-21- <br /> <br />National Flood Programs in Review 2000 <br />