My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD04820
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
FLOOD04820
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:47:23 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 1:04:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Evaluation and Implementation of Urban Drainage and Flood Control Projects Completion Report
Date
6/1/1974
Prepared By
CSU Environmental Resources Center,
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
141
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />to document procedures for evaluating the cost effectiveness of proposed <br /> <br /> <br />UDFC improvements and presenting the results so that decisionmakers can <br /> <br /> <br />make the choice with more definitive data. <br /> <br /> <br />Selection between competing UDFC projects based on the minimum cost <br /> <br /> <br />criteria will normally opt for the project having the least cost which <br /> <br /> <br />provides a specified level of protection. In the systems framework, <br /> <br /> <br />this is equivalent to fixing effectiveness and minimizing cost. The <br /> <br /> <br />alternative approach is to fix cost and maximize effectiveness. The <br /> <br /> <br />latter would be a more economically efficient approach for UDFC projects <br /> <br /> <br />considering the nature of the urban budgeting process. <br /> <br /> <br />If an urban capital budget is allocated over the services shown on <br /> <br /> <br />Table II-I, urban drainage and flood control will receive some share <br /> <br /> <br />according to the perceived needs for UDFC expenditures. This will <br /> <br /> <br />depend somewhat on the evaluation process described earlier in the PPBS <br /> <br /> <br />stages. It may be that a city is committed to solving drainage problems <br /> <br /> <br />Dl' DZ,...DN sequentially, at fixed levels of effectiveness. Project <br /> <br /> <br />D2 would not begin until Dl is completed and so on. If this is the <br /> <br /> <br />case, a fixed effectiveness, minimum cost solution is indicated. If, <br /> <br /> <br />however, the city decides to solve these drainage problems by allocating <br /> <br /> <br />the urban drainage budget, B, between the projects; Bl to Dl' B2 to D2 <br />and so on, then a fixed cost, maximum effectiveness approach is called <br /> <br /> <br />for. Of course, there are many complicating factors such as the ate o~ <br /> <br /> <br />nothing character of UDFC projects, the question of project timing, and <br /> <br /> <br />others. If the maximum effectiveness approach is used, a careful <br /> <br /> <br />accounting of benefits for each alternative project will be required. <br /> <br />33 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.