FLOOD07834 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

statewide mitigation goals and to assess mitigation projects in a proactive manner. Potential projects may be matched with remaining funds from the Governor's Emer- gency fund. The taxpayers in Arizona prefer a nonstructural approach to mitigation. Communities are now doing Multi-Objective-Management planning that retains open space as riparian habitat areas. Three recent successes have been the Indian Bend Wash area in Scottsdale, the town of Gilbert's use of detention basins as recreational parks, and the town of Winkleman's use of their HMGP-acquired land for baseball fields, as a park and a rodeo ground. Mitigation has also helped the residents of Maricopa County. The city of Phoenix's 91 st Avenue Waste Water Treatment Plant is the second largest in the southwest, serving almost all communities in Maricopa County. Continued flooding and soil erosion along the Salt River have caused severe erosion at the facility. To protect this critical public facility, state, local and federal mitigation programs partnered to build a 2,700 foot extension to the existing soil-cement bank along the riverbank. The ben- efits in avoided future damage are expected to at least equal the cost of this project. Ie . 0 . L . 0 . R · A · 0 . 0 . In fiscal years 1997 and 1998, The Colorado Office of Emergency Management and the Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Council funded 18 local mitigation projects, with costs ranging from $300 to $10,000 each. Federal funds were allocated to the projects by the state instead of being used to fund a State Hazard Mitigation Officer, the latter supported by other funding sources since 1995. Some examples of projects include GIS data purchases for wildfire and flood mitigation in local communities, a wildfire slash and mulch program, a historical drought hazard compilation, a hail impact study, thousands of copies of hazard awareness publications, a seismic reference library and an ice jam drainage study. In 1998, Colorado initiated a unique program designed to tie mitigation to local plans. The state has an energy and mineral impact fee that is returned to local gov- ernments in order to address the negative consequences of these industries and are awarded competitively through the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. At the option of the requesting jurisdiction, Colorado emergency management may also provide funding to help with hazard analysis and addressing these problems in local land use plans and policies. The state has used the "Hazard Element" jointly produced by the American Planning Association and FEMA's Mitigation Directorate as a model for local jurisdictions. One example of success is Limon, Colorado. The town had long suffered from erosion and flooding caused by a local railroad. The town joined forces with state agencies and the railroad company to build a channel, construct concrete box culverts, remove silt from an existing highway structure, remove and replace the railroad tracks, and create wetlands. Not only did the project physically remove over 400 properties from the floodplain, it also created a popular fishing pond, saved residents money they would have had to spend on flood insurance, strengthened state and local partner- ships, and opened up space for development. Limon shows that everyone can benefit from mitigation. 10 · E . L . A . W . A · R . E ___ _~ In Delaware, the State Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Transportation spend the most on mitigation activities. The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for beach renourishment and floodplain management. The Department of Transportation is currently building a new highway route running ~I National Emergency Management Association