Laserfiche WebLink
<br />proo{ing were determined to be more than offset by anticpated re- <br />ductions in either future flood losses or insurance costs. An <br />analysis of flood proofing in Canada showed similar results.l <br /> <br />A separate study of the substantial improvement provisions <br />of floodplain regulations showed they did not have any significant <br />effects.2 At the existing threshold of 50 percent of market values, <br />it was estimated that the total number of residential structures <br />substantially improved each year would not exceed 13,600 nationwide. <br />Of this total only an estimated 4,200 or 30 percent would result <br />from natural disasters. <br /> <br />Projected Effects In Case Study Areas <br /> <br />A scenario method was used to forecast development conditions <br />in the near (1980) and longer term (1990) future for specific areas <br />under three sets of regulatory conditions. These conditions are <br />presented as three regulatory scenarios. <br /> <br />Projections of population and future land use patterns were <br />made for each case study area from the information gathered during <br />the field investigations. These projections provided the basis <br />for the forecasts of population, housing, and developed areas (land <br />use) that were formulated for 1980 and 1990 target years under the <br />three regulatory scenarios. Differences between the scenarios <br />were taken to be indicators of the effects of different degrees of <br />floodplain regulations. <br /> <br />The three scenarios are comprised of (1) allowing the free <br />market to determine the 100-year floodplain use with no regulations <br /> <br />IJames F. McLaren, Ltd., Flood Proofing: A Component of Flood <br />Damage Reduction (Ottawa, Canada: Department of Fisheries and <br />Environment, 1978). <br /> <br />2Sheaffer & Roland, Substantial Improvement, p. 3 <br /> <br />-10- <br />