Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />In the absence of additional funding, only minor improvements can be expected in the <br />NWS collection of flood damage estimates. The following modest changes are suggested to <br />improve accuracy, consistency, and usefulness. <br /> <br />(1) Clearly define the purposes of the damage estimates and what types of loss are to be <br />included. <br /> <br />(2) Provide uniform instructions to staff members responsible for compiling damage <br />estimates at all NWS field offices. Instructions should include how to obtain damage estimates <br />and some training in damage estimation. <br /> <br />(3) It would be valuable to provide separate estimates of different types of loss, as was <br />done in Climatic Data National Summary through 1975. At a minimum, distinguish on-farm <br />losses of agricultural products from other property losses. <br /> <br />(4) It is reasonable to set a lower limit below which loss estimates need not be reported, <br />such as $50,000 for a single flood at the county level. The NWS-IDC practice of focusing <br />greatest attention on floods with damage greater than $1 million at the state level is also <br />reasonable. These practices would save staff time and have little impact on total damage <br />estimates. <br /> <br />67 <br />