FLOOD04820 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. project costs can be equitably apportioned. Benefit-cost analyses of UDFC projects can be useful in all of the above situations. The design of such a study must, however, be specified according to the ultimate use of the output of the study. The term "Benefit-Cost Analysis" (BCA) as applied to UDFC projects, must be viewed as wider than the traditional BCA which recognized only economic efficiency as a viable benefit. Benefits and costs should be normally considered in the four categories recommended recently by the U. S. Water Resources Council: economic efficiency, regional development, environ- mental impact, and social benefits. In the case of UDFC projects, the latter may well be the most significant, particularly in the case of the so-called mino~ type of project. UDFC systems must be distinguished into minor or major systems, both for implementation purposes and for benefit-cost studies because public benefits differ considerably between the two types of systems. The state-of-the-art of conducting benefit-cost studies for urban drainage and flood control projects is not far advanced. The distinction between minor and major projects has only recently received wide accep- tance. The evaluation problem is plagued by our inability to quantify indirect, secondary and intangible benefits associated with UDPC projects. In the case of the major flood control project, attention has mostly been focused on the potential reduction in flood damages associated with such projects. This attention is probably due to the visibility of flood damages after severe floods as well as the availability of data for quantifying such benefits. It was found during this study, however, that the state-of-the-art of estimating damage benefits is rather primi- tive and there currently exists a wide latitude in the practices of ~ ~ 3