Laserfiche WebLink
<br />were based on data compiled for ,previous floods throughout the Missouri <br />River basin. The flood -damage data in the Kansas City; Mis'souri a.rea <br />and the Kansas River ,basin from the flpods pf May~July1951' were used <br />to correlate estimates of flood damage to 'freight transportation ~ystems. <br /> <br />.' , <br />29. EVALUATION OF ASSOCIATED ECONOMIC LOSSES <br /> <br />, <br />it <br /> <br />Flood-related expenditures or los~ of income not otherwis,e <br />classified in categories of direct ~lood losses were classified as <br />associated economic losses. Estimates of these associated eC,onomic <br />. - - ' , . . <br />losses to the private sector of the economy were computed on 'the basis <br />of varying percentages of physical flood losses. The factorsus~d <br />to compute these losses were deriv~d from da.ta compiled by the Corps <br />of Engineers 'Kansas City District in detailed post-flood studies <br />following the Missouri River and Kansas River floods of May-July 1951. <br />The correlation of the Kansas City District data with the South Platte <br />River basin flood experience was made in terms of basic damage <br />categories on the basis of the relative magnitude, of physical damages <br />weighted by the population class of ,thec;ommunity or area'involved., <br /> <br />30. EVALUATION OF SECONDARY ECONOMIC LOSSES <br /> <br />a. General. Because of the magnitude and extent of damages , <br />inflicted by the flood, other economic losses ,not otherwise ciassified' <br />as direct f160d los,ses or associat~d econ6mic losses were classified <br />as secondary economic losses. These secondary losses include: ,loss <br />of tourist income which is an important an,d increasing contribution <br />to Colorado's ,economy; loss of State and Federal tax reveJClues in , ' <br />income tax, on a reduc,ed property taxbase and casualt:( loss adjustmeJClts; <br />and estimated additional burdens on the reg'io.nal' economy imposed by the <br />interest payments on disaster loans granted by the Small'Business <br />Administration. <br /> <br />b. Estimated loss in tourist income.' As a result of the June 1965 <br />flood, general vacation tourism in'Coloradowasdown 12.8'percent for <br />the month of June, but recovered later' in the summer so the 6verall <br />total was 5 percent lower than the previous year. The Chambers of <br />Commerce in Durango and Estes Park, mountain cities both well away <br />from the flood area, reported to the State DiVision of Commerce and <br />Development that their tourist business was from 10 to 15 percent <br />below their June 1964 volume. This indicates that loss in tourist <br />income was not confined to the flood-stricken area. It is assumed <br />that if the 1965 June flood had not occurred, Colorado would have <br />~ experienced a normal year in tourist trade, which would have been <br />a 5 percent increase over the previous year. Thus, the loss of <br />Colorado tourist income due to the flood was estimated to be 10 <br />percent of the previous year's income. <br /> <br />21 <br />