FLOOD05740

• County: Denver
• Community: All
• Stream Name: All
• Basin: South Platte
• Title: Landslide Loss Reduction
• Date: 1/1/1989
• Prepared For: State of Colorado
• Prepared By: CGS
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Educational/Technical/Reference Information

Table 1. Estimates of minimum amounts of EXPLANATION
landslide damage in the United States, . High
1973-1983, in millions of dollars. All figures
are estimates. Figures queried are very ell Medium
rough estimates (adapted from Brabb, 1984).
Damage 1973-1983 ~ Low?
State Priv. Ann. 0 Low
Roads Prop. Total Avg.
State ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ('
Alabama 10.0 0.5 10.5 1.05 f--
I
Alaska 10.0 0.0 10.0 1.0
Arizona 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.2 r
Arkansas 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.2
California 800.0 ? 200.0 ? 1000.0 ? 100.0 ? Figure 1 b. ;--
Colorado 20.0 50.0 70.0 7.0 . Potential landslide
Connecticut 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ,.
Delaware 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.2 hazard in Maine r
(Wiggins et al., 1978). ".
Diet. of Columbia 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.8 [
Florida 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ,
Georgia 1.0? 0.0 1.0 ? 0.1 ? ~c'
,
Hawaii 4.0 0.5 4.5 0.45 f
Idaho 10.0 ? 1.0? 11.0 ? 1.1? The widespread occurrence of landsliding, ,.-,
Illinois 1.0 1.0? . 2.0? 0.2 ? ."
c
Indiana 10.0 1.0 11.0 1.1 together with the potential for catastrophic k
Iowa 1.0 0.3 1.3 0.13 statewide and regional impacts, emphasizes
Kansas 1.0 0.3 ? 1.3? 0.13
Kentucky 180.0 10.0 ? 190.0 ? 19.0? the need for cooperation among federal, state, .,
Louisiana 2.0 0.3 2.3 0.23 and local governments and the private sector. .~:
Maint'! 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.06 Although annual landslide losses in the U.S. :;;'
Maryland 20.0 0.0 20.0 2.0 are extremely high, significant reductions in
..
Massachusetts 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.03
Michigan 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.01 future losses can be achieved through a comb-
Minnesota 7.0 0.0 7.0 0.7 ination of landslide hazard mitigation and
Mississippi 3.0 0.5 3.5 0.35 emergency management. "
Missouri 2.0 ? 1.0 ? 3.0? .0.3 ? Landslide hazard mitigation consists of
Montana 10.0 ? 1.0 ? 11.0 ? 1.1 ?
Nebraska 0.4 0.4 ? 0.8? 0.08 ? those activities that reduce the likelihood of
Nevada 2.0? 0.5 2.5 ? 0.25 ? occurrence of damaging landslides and mini-
New Hampshire 10.0 0.0 10.0 1.0 mize the effects of the landslides that do occur.
New Jersey 3.0 3.0 6.0 0.6
New Mexico 3.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 The goal of emergency management is to mini-
New York 20.0 50.0 ? 70.0? 7.0 ? mize loss oflife and property damage through
North Carolina 45.0 0.5 45.5 4.55 the timely and efficient commitment of avail-
North Dakota 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.4
Ohio 60.0? 40.0 100.0 ? 10.0 able resources.
Oklahoma 2.0? 0.0 2.0? 0.2? Despite their common goals, emergency
Oregon 30.0 10.0 40.0 4.0 management and hazard mitigation activities
Pennsylvania 50.0 10.0? 60.0 ? 6.0 have historically been carried out independ-
Rhode lsland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
South Carolina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ently. The integration of these two efforts is
South Dakota 16.0 2.0 18.0 1.8 most often demonstrated in the recovery phase
Tennessee 100.0 10.0 ? 110.0 ? 11.0 ? following a disaster, when decisions about re-
Texas 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.8
Utah 200.0 ? 1O.0? 210.0 ? 21.0? construction and future land uses in the com-
Vennont 3.0 0.5 3.5 0.35 munityare made.
Virginia 11.0 1.0 12.0 1.2
Washington 70.0 ? 30.0? 100.0 ? 1O.0? Emergency management, if well executed,
West Virginia 270.0 5.0 275.0 27.5 can do much to minimize the loss and suffering
Wisconsin 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.07 associated with a particular disaster. However,
Wyoming 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.4 unless it is guided by the goals of preventing or
Thtal (U.S.) 2010.3 442.2 2452.5 245.25 reducing long-tenn hazard losses, it is unlikely
to reduce the adverse impact of future disasters
2
~';
,~'
..<: