Laserfiche WebLink
<br />benefit depends on the number of persons who escape inconvenience as a <br /> <br /> <br />result of an UDFC project. This factor is somewhat recognized in the <br /> <br /> <br />common practice of providing higher capacity UDFC facilities in areas <br /> <br /> <br />of more intensive use. Concerning land value, the increase resulting <br /> <br /> <br />from implementation of an UDFC project will be a function of land use. <br /> <br /> <br />The same UDFC project might add $100,000 to the value of property in <br /> <br /> <br />an affluent neighborhood while adding only $10,000 in a less affluent. <br /> <br />State-of-the-Art of Evaluation Capability <br /> <br /> <br />Current practice in many U, S. cities is to design both major and <br /> <br /> <br />minor UDFC systems based upon somewhat arbitrary criteria. Of course, <br /> <br /> <br />this is also the practice for establishing most types of environmental <br /> <br /> <br />quality standards. Minor systems are designed for I, 2, 5, 10-year or <br /> <br /> <br />some other frequency based upon the discretion of local decisionmakers <br /> <br /> <br />(often with millions of dollars of construction cost at stake) whereas <br /> <br /> <br />major systems often point to the 100-year flow because of recent federal <br /> <br /> <br />pressure through the implementation of the Flood Insurance Act of 1968 <br /> <br /> <br />and other legislation, This setting of standards reflects an implicit <br /> <br /> <br />weighting of benefits and costs. The setting of standards also ".. .states <br /> <br /> <br />the goals of a program, ...a measuring stick to determine the program's <br /> <br /> <br />progress and a basis for determining what actions should be taken by <br /> <br /> <br />the program" [7]. <br /> <br /> <br />It has been common practice for public officials to basically use <br /> <br /> <br />minimum cost criteria in the selection of UDFC projects for implementation, <br /> <br /> <br />Cost minimization is a valid criteria, but it does not insure the most <br /> <br /> <br />cost effective use of the public dollar, particularly when social, environ- <br /> <br /> <br />mental and distributional effects must be considered. One of the objec- <br /> <br /> <br />tives of this report is to confirm the existence of other criteria and <br /> <br />32 <br /> <br />- <br />