My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD00152
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
FLOOD00152
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2009 1:22:04 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 9:07:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Denver
Community
All
Stream Name
All
Title
National Flood Programs in Review
Date
1/1/2000
Prepared For
State of Colorado
Prepared By
ASFPM
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />· The administration and oversight of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program should eventually be <br />turned over to qualified states (see discussion in section on State and Local Capability, above.) <br /> <br />FLOOD FIGHTING <br /> <br />Independent flood fighting activities on the levees during the 1993 flood led to sandbagging that <br />caused damage at other sites along the river, and to sabotage, Flood fighting either saves or damages <br />property, depending on one's perspective, <br /> <br />· Leveed rivers touching multiple states-like the Mississippi-should have a flood fighting plan <br />in place, with federal oversight for implementation, and a National Guard presence for <br />enforcement. <br /> <br />INTERPRETATION OF FORECASTS <br /> <br />River forecasts are increasingly being made available to the general public. These forecasts should <br />explicitly state the variability of estimates so that individuals do not get a false sense of security, but <br />instead pursue appropriate protective actions, just in case. The 1997 floods in Grand Forks, North <br />Dakota, taught a valuable lesson. The National Weather Service has undertaken a demonstration <br />project in Iowa to test the feasibility of issuing forecasts with variability stated, The ASFPM, while <br />supportive of this, urges caution in releasing wanlings that are confusing or may have the effect of <br />delaying appropriate action-like evacuation, It is extremely important that federal agencies speak <br />with one voice in the issuance of such forecasts and warnings, <br /> <br />· Better ways need to be found to convey to the public the uncertainties associated with weather <br />and flood forecasts, and to help people understand their risk and take appropriate action to <br />prepare for and avoid such hazards, <br /> <br />ACTING ON FLOOD WARNINGS <br /> <br />Many local governments are developing flood warning and monitoring systems. Despite vast <br />differences in program components, there is one common frustration: the difficulty of progressing <br />beyond collecting and monitoring data to actually evacuating people and property during a flood <br />threat. <br /> <br />· The National Weather Service, in partnership with state and local governments and other federal <br />agencies, needs to find ways to better integrate and utilize this data and develop better ways to <br />disseminate information to people at risk in a way that causes them to understand their risk, <br />personalize it, and then take appropriate and timely action. <br /> <br />· The ASFPM should incorporate the issue of flood warnings into its organizational structure and <br />committee work. <br /> <br />Association of State Floodplain Managers <br /> <br />-38- <br /> <br />National Flood Programs in Review 2000 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.