Laserfiche WebLink
<br />report. The three were omitted because they seem to be used less frequently, although they are <br />not less important, and because limited time and funds necessitated a lesser number. <br /> <br />Recent legislation <br />House Document No. 46S and Executive Order 11296 provided needed policy guidance for <br />formulating nonstructural plans. Prairie du Chien (1970) and Charles River (1972) were two of <br />the earliest Corps studies to emphasize nonstructural solutions based upon this guidance. <br />Formal legislation in the form of the 1973 Flood Disaster Protection Act and the Water Resources <br />Development Act of 1974 extended and expanded the emphasis on nonstructural. The 1973 Act <br />took a significant step toward implementing the nonstructural approach by encouraging and <br />requiring the purchase of flood insurance as a means of reducing financial loss to a property <br />owner. In addition, the 1973 Act encouraged and required adoption of land use regulation and <br />raising or flood proofing of new structures to or above the 100 year flood elevation as a part of <br />the insurance program. The insurance premium gave the property owner an explicit statement <br />of the cost of flooding to him and gave him incentive to seek alternative means of occupancy to <br />reduce this cost. In ~ddition, this Act and the associated FIA regulations influenced the <br />formulation and evaluation of other nonstructural measures which are considered for <br />implementation in project planning. <br /> <br />Section 73 of the 1974 Act called for explicit consideration of nonstructural measures in <br />Federal planning and provides for cost sharing of such measures. Section 73(a) of this Act <br />requires that, <br /> <br />"In the survey, planning, or design by any Federal agency of any project <br />involving flood protection, consideration shall be given to nonstructural <br />alternatives to prevent or reduce flood damages including, but not limited to, <br />floodproofing of structures; flood plain regulation; acquisition of flood plain <br />lands for recreational, fish and wildlife, and other public purposes; and <br />relocation with a view toward formulating the most economically, socially, and <br />environmentally acceptable means of reducing or preventing flooddamages". <br /> <br />The cost sharing provision of Section 73(b) spelled out for the first time the extent to which non- <br />Federal interests would be .required to share in the cost of nonstructural projects. It called for <br />non-Federal participation to be comparable to the value of the lands, easements, and rights~of- <br />way required for structural protection, but not to exceed 20 percent of the project costs. This <br />provision addressed an issue which had been unresolved in previous policy statements and <br />legislation, and attempted to place nonstructural measures on a comparable basis with <br />structural measures. <br /> <br />Recent Research <br />While nonstructural measures have been identified conceptually for sometime, until recently <br />there has been little work undertaken to provide specific information on what actions are <br />necessary for implementation; costs of implementation; effectiveness in reducing flood losses; <br />social, environmental, and economic impacts of implementation; and identification of <br />conditions which are most favorable for the application of each measure. One of the first efforts <br />of this type was by Sheaffer in 1960 when he examined ways to flood proof structures (5). In 1965 <br />House Document No. 465" called for "programs to collect, prepare, and disseminate <br /> <br />2 <br />