Laserfiche WebLink
<br />To the extent that a ~truClUral alternative would not neces~arily remove all struc. <br />tures from the lOO-year flood hazard area, f1lXld in~urance could be a componcntot a <br />structural plan. <br /> <br />STRUCTL"RAL l\lEASl'RES <br /> <br />The u~e of flood insurance to provide protection again~t financial losses caused bv <br />flooding will increase in the future. Thcre are two primary reasons that this will occur. <br />First, flood insurance is required hy most lending institutions on structures used as col- <br />lateral that are located inthc lOO-yearfloodplain. As property is sold and financed over <br />time,an increasednumbcrofstruCtureswi\1heinsurro, Secondly,aspropcrtyowncrs <br />bccome aware of the threat of flooding, they are more likely to purchase flood insur ance. <br />In the event a scriousflood OCCUTS. a large increasc in the number of insured structures <br />isprohab1e. <br /> <br />Several structural measures were considered to reduce or eliminate th", flooding in <br />Fort Collins from Dry Cn:ek. As discusscd earlier in this report, the study area was <br />divided into three reaches to be eonsi~tent with the City's drainageway plan, The <br />formulation of structural measures was lailored to address those areas experiencing the <br />greatest flood damage while minimizing the environmental impacts. Structural meaSUTCS <br />considered were a diversion channel and channel improvements. Dams were not evalua- <br />ted as part of this reconnaissance stlJdy becalJsc the physical topography in the Fort <br />Collins area is flat, and thete were no apparent cost-effective locatio nsfordams. levees <br />were not considered because of the proximity of the channel to rcsident ialandcommer- <br />cial buildings and because the existing channel in some areas has been obliterated hy <br />deve10pmentand would require reconstruction. <br /> <br />FLOOD I.LAI.... ZO!'\Il\G <br />The City of Fort Collins and Larimer Count}' have adopted land use regulations <br />restricting development in the lOO-year flood plain and in the designated floodway. <br />These reglllations rL'quire that new stn.Jctures placed in the l100d plain be protected by <br />f1()odproofingorelev!\ti""frompot~tialdamagebyalOO-yearfloodevent. In the case <br />of the floodway, the developer must abo ensure that !hI: development will not increase <br />lCJO..year 1100d dCplhs beyond acceptable tloodway limits. <br /> <br />PLAN ~UR,"tlH,ATlO:\ A~ ALTERNATIVE PLANS <br /> <br />Plan formulation cfforts for this reconnais>ancc study procce(hl through the <br />fullowing three phascs: review of previollS sp<,n"(,r-identHicd alternatives. formulation <br />and analysis of alternatives dllring the initial rCCOllnalSsanCe study, and furtber analysis <br />of the desired ahernative during thercconnaissance stIJdy extension ef forts, Theseefforts <br />will he summarized. <br /> <br />Continued flood plain regulation is required in conjunction with FEMA's tlood <br />insurance program. These regulations will limit increases in future flood damages but <br />will not greatly reduce the existing l1uod problem. <br /> <br />The Dry Creek nrainageway Plan. prepared for the City of Fort Collins in January <br />1980 by Gingery, idcntified the following four economically feasible alternatives: <br /> <br />. Channel improvements, including a channel bypass around Aha Vista, <br /> <br />5-5 <br /> <br />56 <br />