Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Post-flood Mitigation Programs: Usually a community becomes interested in flood <br />protection programs after a flood. Not only is there interest in trying new approaches, there <br />may be funds available to support new programs. In the last few years, Federal disaster <br />assistance programs have promoted and funded flood proofing as a way to reduce future <br />disaster assistance payments. <br /> <br />For example, while processing the applications for grants to repair flooded wastewater <br />treatment plants or other public buildings, FEMA staff identify flood proofing or other <br />mitigation alternatives. They encourage the local applicants (and provide 75% of the cost) to <br />incorporate flood proofing instead of returning the building to its pre-disaster, flood prone <br />condition. Many communities have found the funds needed to match the FEMA grant for <br />flood proofing. <br /> <br />The Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Block Grant <br />program also has a post-disaster funding program. A State agency administers this program <br />in rural areas. The Village of St. Charles, Michigan, took advantage of this program to fund <br />a comprehensive flood damage reduction program after it was flooded in 1986. The program <br />included dike construction, bridge improvements, sanitary sewer protection and elevation of <br />homes. The cost of home elevation was shared with the property owners on a 75/25 basis. <br /> <br />3.4 Property Owner Involvement <br /> <br />Voluntary property owner involvement is vital to the initiation and long-term operation and <br />maintenance of a flood proofing project. However, flood proofing is often viewed by <br />property owners as a poor alternative to a flood control project that keeps water away from <br />them. They would rather have the problem corrected than have to modify their homes or lots, <br />especially if they think the resulting appearance will affect their property values. Many times <br />residents perceive a flood proofing proposal as evidence that local officials are giving up on <br />them and are leaving the residents to fend for themselves. <br /> <br />Rood proofing can be a major disruption to people's houses. Planning for a flood protection <br />project can be a tense time for the owners, who may not know whether the community will <br />be stopping the flooding, altering their houses, or relocating their families out of the <br />neighborhood. Therefore, flood proofing projects may begin with the owners suspicious of, <br />or opposed to, the idea. <br /> <br />Keeping residents informed was the recommendation most frequently voiced by communities <br />experienced in implementing flood protection plans. A guiding principal for Prince George's <br />County, Maryland, calls for developing a personal relationship and mutual trust with the <br />property owner. This requires both the right attitude and sound technical data that can be <br />explained in lay terms. <br /> <br />To gain support and cooperation for any flood protection proposal. the experienced <br />communities recommend citizen participation early in the planning process. Tulsa, <br />Oklahoma, South Holland, Illinois, and King County. Washington, all used existing standing <br />committees to represent the interests of flood plain residents. <br /> <br />-17- <br />