FLOOD03407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Officials of many communities appear to be driven toward growth and expansion of urban boundaries. Quite often, developers' plats and proposed zoning and site improvements are approved as submitted, with little guidance or control being pro- vided by the local government. In such instances, little attention is given to careful analysis of future runoff, drainage alternatives, and optimization of drainage system layout for efficient operation and future expansion. These matters are important functions that should be performed, or supervised, by the local governments, with assistance from other agencies having an interest or responsibility. Most "piece-meal" improvements made in past years have just transferred the stormwater problems to downstream areas. Planning should be done on a watershed basis but, preferably, on a regional basis. Future development should be considered in the master plan so that proper land use can be determined and development guided to follow the areas where adequate stormwater drainage facilities are planned for near-term implementation. Delay in initiating public improvement programs is a costly mistake! It is possible to cope with the rapidly-escalating project costs characteristic of this era--by having an up-to-date plan on the shelf when funds become available. This pertains to stormwater facilities and other public facilities. One reason that many communities do not participate fully in federal grant programs for construct- ing public improvements is that they do not have a plan ready when the funds be- come available. Local officials often explain non-participation by claiming "too much paperwork". Although federal funding for urban stormwater projects has been miniscule compared to other federal programs, organized lobbying efforts with Con- gress are underway for increased federal participation in solving local flooding problems. "Planning" in small size communities is often a function of the departments of public works or the engineer's office. Large work loads, inadequately-staffed de- partments, and lack of qualified planning personnel usually preclude emphasis on long-range planning. Larger communities are more fortunate in that they often have a department of planning and zoning or a department of community development, or both, to perform long-range planning functions. Communities located in metropolitan areas usually can obtain data, information and planning assistance from a metropolitan (or regional) planning commission. However, officials of many local governments are not convinced that participation in the activities of such planning agencies is advantageous. Many elected officials feel that these agencies usurp their rights and remove control from the elected representatives of local governments. An example is the "A-95 review process" which is conducted by metropolitan or regional planning agencies for allocation of federal funds to local public agencies. Many local officials feel that each local government should be permitted to submit funding applications directly to federal agencies. They resent having them prejudged and evaluated by individuals who are appointed to their jobs and not directly responsible to the local electorate. This leads to friction between local governments and the areawide planning agency and, as a result, diminished effectiveness of areawide planning and land development-- producing an adverse impact on stormwater management, when viewed from a watershed perspective. Unfortunately, local planning for land development often overlooks the need to preserve and protect natural resources. This is especially true in places where large land developments are common. Land developers often find it expeditious and economical to clear all trees and vegetation, and cut-and-fill land areas with 14 I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I