|
<br />Economics: The most frequently cited reason for funding flood proofing was cost - it was
<br />shown to be less expensive than other flood protection measures. In some cases, as in Fairfax
<br />County, Virginia; Homewood, Illinois; and King County, Washington, studies of local flood
<br />problem areas reviewed a variety of structural and nonstructural alternatives. Where flood
<br />proofing was found to be the most economical solution, the community favored it instead of a
<br />more expensive structural project.
<br />
<br />Flood proofing is also less expensive than acquisition, especially where property values are
<br />high. As shown in Figure 8, below, King County estimated that it could elevate eight homes
<br />for the price of acquiring and relocating one. Part of this large difference in cost is due to
<br />the high cost of housing in the Seattle area.
<br />
<br />Two cautions must be noted. First, communities must remember that flood proofing does not
<br />stop street and yard flooding. damage to infrastructure, traffic disruption and other problems
<br />that accompany floods. Protecting buildings is often only one goal of a flood protection
<br />program. Thus, using dollars only may not produce an accurate comparison.
<br />
<br />Second, predicting the actual costs of projects in areas with little flood proofing experience
<br />may be difficult. A homeowner may construct a project at a relatively small out-of-pocket
<br />cost. The same project will cost substantially more if it is fully funded by a government
<br />agency that pays for engineering design and prevailing wages for the contractor. For
<br />example, the first bids received by Homewood, Illinois, were twice the original estimates.
<br />This report includes the costs of the projects described to show the great range of prices in
<br />different parts of the country.
<br />
<br />Comprehensive Planning: Some communities have prepared comprehensive flood plain
<br />management or flood damage reduction plans. During the planning process, they concluded
<br />that flood proofing should be a part of the program, especially in isolated areas that won't be
<br />protected by structural projects. The plan may recommend a variety of ways to implement
<br />flood proofing projects, such as providing technical assistance and funding.
<br />
<br />King County. Washington,
<br />prepared such a comprehensive
<br />plan. It includes preliminary
<br />project recommendations for
<br />over 120 flooding and erosion
<br />problem sites in the County.
<br />The plan looked at home
<br />elevation along with other flood
<br />protection measures, such as
<br />retrofits of existing flood
<br />control facilities, relocation of
<br />homes, construction of new
<br />flood or erosion control
<br />facilities, and improved flood
<br />hazard education and flood
<br />warning.
<br />
<br />Figure 8. Total Needs Identified in King County,
<br />Washington's Flood Hazard Reduction Plan
<br />
<br />Cost
<br />
<br />One-time Cost Annual
<br />
<br />Structural capital improvements $265,000,000
<br />Relocation and elevation
<br />Elevate 168 houses
<br />Acquire 234 houses
<br />Acquire 113 mobile homes
<br />Maintenance and monitoring
<br />River planning
<br />Flood hazard education
<br />Warning and emergency response
<br />Complaint response and enforcement
<br />Interlocal coordination
<br />Administration
<br />
<br />4,000,000
<br />42,100,000
<br />7,300,000
<br />383,000
<br />4,850,000
<br />106,000
<br />97,000
<br />o
<br />64,000
<br />o
<br />$323,900,000
<br />
<br />$300,000
<br />240,000
<br />
<br />2,400,000
<br />o
<br />15,000
<br />62,000
<br />216,000
<br />15,000
<br />150,000
<br />$3,398,000
<br />
<br />-15-
<br />
|