Laserfiche WebLink
<br />under Scenario I would increase 29 percent over 1975 levels by <br />1980 and 71 percent by 1990. Approximately 50 percent of these <br />increased average annual flood losses would be suffered by resi- <br />dences. <br /> <br />Moderate regulations (Scenario II), however, greatly limit <br />the rate of growth in average annual flood losses. The losses <br />increase by only 4 percent over 1975 levels by 1980 and only 10 <br />percent by 1990. <br /> <br />The reduction in the rate of flood loss increases is asso- <br />ciated with the reduction in exposure to damages from the 100- <br />year flood. This reduction in exposure is a result of regula- <br />tions and is achieved partly by horizontal shifts of development <br />to locations outside the floodplain and partly by vertical <br />shifts, i.e., elevating and flood proofing buildings. Damages do <br />increase slowly, however, because buildings shifted vertically <br />are still vulnerable to greater flood events. To the degree that <br />moderate regulations permit development within the 100-year flood- <br />plain, there remains the potential for future losses from floods <br />greater than the 100-year flood. <br /> <br />Regulations that prevent development (Scenario III) produce <br />a small, but measurable, gradual decline in average annual flood <br />losses over the long term because of the corrective elements which <br />begin to reduce the number of existing floodplain structures. This <br />decline reaches approximately one percent by 1990. Scenario II <br />has no workable corrective elements and still allows flood proofed <br />development. Thus, it shows a small increase in flood losses. <br />These increases are significantly lower than those which would <br />be experienced under Scenario I. <br /> <br />While regulation would divert development from the lOO-year <br />floodplain in selected study areas, such development can be ac- <br /> <br />-13- <br />