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 /> <br />FLOOD DAHAGE REDUCTION KEASllUS CONSIDEIWI <br /> <br />Potential alternatives cONlidered include lID action; nonatructural <br /> <br /> <br />measures, such as flood proofing, permanent evacuation or relocation, and <br /> <br /> <br />flood emergency preparedness; and structural aeasures, such as reservoirs, <br /> <br /> <br />channel modification/improvement., diversion, and levees and floodwalls. <br /> <br />NO ACTION <br />The no action alternative would not reduce the existing flood damage <br />potential; however, within the areas covered by flood inaurance, addition- <br />al damages would be prevented through continued cOllpliance with flood <br />plain zoning ordinances. If Kalta remained in the Flood Inaurance Pro- <br />gram, the finencial losses of insured flood victi.. would be compensated <br />through flood insurance payments that would mitigate the flood demeges <br />sustained. <br /> <br />NONSTiUCTURAL KEASllUS <br /> <br />FLOOD P1I.OOPIRC <br />This aeasure would involve various techniques such as elevating the <br />structure or its contents and rehabilitating the building exterior and <br />openings with water-resistant ...terial. It would be possible to construct <br />small ring levees or walls around flood-susceptible buildings. This <br />method would require space greater than the size of the building. <br /> <br />I <br />I- <br />i' <br /> <br />Obtaining the space could not only be a problea, but also aight not <br />be esthetically pleasing to the individuals or cOllllll1nity. These flood <br />proofing meesures would be both expensive and difficult to iaplement. <br />They were not considered further. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />PERHANlNT EVACUATION OR RELOCATIOR <br />Acquisition of existing property, with either relocation or <br />demolition of the buildings, would be accomplished with this messure. <br /> <br />21 <br />