Laserfiche WebLink
<br />parts of the structure while other parts are flooded); and gas piping can be sloped and fitted <br />with a drain' plug to allow drainage. <br /> <br />Physical Feasibility <br />The actions described in this Chapter are generally applicable to all structures to one degree <br />or another and in some combination. Their application is site specific and will depend upon the <br />type of structure and contents, the nature of the flood hazard, and upon the availability of other <br />alternatives. They appear to be most appropriate in situations where flooding is not severe or <br />where it is the only feasible alternative - physically or economically. It is likely these actions <br />will find their greatest application as requirements in local building codes or in other building <br />regulations, and in combination with other measures. <br /> <br />Costs <br />Costs of implementing the actions associated with this measure vary with the actions taken, <br />but generally are low because they can be done as part of new construction, remodeling or <br />repair. The Federal Housing Administration has collected nationwide cost information and have <br />found that first costs range from practically nothing to 2.5 percent of the structure value (1, 2). <br />Often the cost is less than 1.0 percent. Assuming a $30,000 structure and amortizing this first cost <br />at 7 percent for 30 years yields annual costs as percentage of structure value of 0.2 and .08 <br />percent for 2.5 and 1.0 percent first costs respectively. This is low and makes it an attractive <br />possibility in situations where available funds are limited. <br /> <br />Economic Feasibility <br />Computation of damage reduced should be based upon estimates of damage with and <br />without a particuiar water resistant material or damage reducing construction practice. This is <br />difficult to determine since damage is not eliminated, as it would be if some property were. <br />removed, but is simply reduced. A proper estimate of this reduction must consider each action <br />and what damage would be likely with and without that action. Expected annual damage <br />reduced would !le computed in the traditional manner by weighting the damage computed <br />with and without, by its probability of occurrence. No estimates of damage reduced were made <br />in this study, although it is felt most actions would be economically feasible because of the low <br />additional cost of implementation in new construction. <br /> <br />Advantages and Disadvantages <br />The advantages and disadvantages of using construction materials and practices which <br />recognize a flood hazard are similar to those mentioned in Chapter 6 on rearranging <br />damageable property within a structure. Table 10-1 summarizes these items. <br /> <br />78 <br />