FLOOD03407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

disenchanted with the required floodplain regulations. They view the program as interference by the federal government in local affairs, particularly as it retards growth of the potential local tax base and annual tax revenues. In many places, hydrologic maps prepared by the former Federal Insurance Admin- istration to delineate the 100-year floodplains are not accurate, and local public officials consider this a serious problem. It is particularly bothersome in areas where minimum elevations must be established for construction of permanent struc- tures. Many urban places are now having the floodplains of local streams delineated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the U.S. Geological Survey. It is felt that these maps should be updated at regular intervals. Although floodplain mapping has received a great impetus, many more years will be required to develop accurate floodplain maps needed in urban communities of the United States. One of the problems with most urban drainage ordinances is that they tend to be written as engineering documents rather than policy statements, as they should be. Many ordinances are not written for clear understanding, and many have un- reasonable and inflexible requirements. Some communities merely copy ordinances of other jurisdictions even though there is little similarity in physiography, pre- cipitation patterns, soils and other parameters. Many stormwater control ordinances are written solely by lawyers, most of whom know little about hydrology and engi- neering. Inspection of construction and land development operations is often lax or non- existent, and penalties for ordinance violations are usually not assessed. Without the force of conscientious inspection and penalty assessment, ordinances are seldom effective in producing desired results. A problem related to enforcement is the refusal of personnel of other public agencies to investigate and observe local drainage ordinances and regulations. This is particularly true of some state high- way departments, public school districts and federal agencies. State legislatures generally regard stormwater control as a relatively low priority item; and only a few states have been progressive in adopting pertinent legislation. There does not appear to be a pattern or uniform emphasis in the legis- lation that has been adopted by states. For example, Illinois has placed great em- phasis on protecting the quality of the State's waters from pollutants in stormwater and other discharges. Colorado has been active in passing various acts for flood control, and has adopted an unique statute defining "benefits", making possible the tax assessment of properties that are not likely to be damaged by floodwaters. Because members of state legislatures usually are elected for two-year terms, there tends to be little continuity in development of state programs. This, to- gether with their dedicated responsiveness to only their own district's needs and priorities, are reasons why it is difficult to obtain meaningful state legislation to aide urban communities, statewide, in stormwater control. Prior to passage of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Federal Flood Disaster Protection Act in 1973, state officials exhibited little commitment toward legislation directed toward solving or preventing stormwater-related problems in urban areas. The major interest in water from a state level was oriented toward water supply, irrigation and agriculture. Legislation enacted by the United States Congress has, in recent years, been responsive to correction of flooding and water pollution problems. However, the amount of federal appropriations for urban and metropolitan stormwater management programs have not been sufficient to facilitate the implementation of needed 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I