FLOOD10248

• County: Statewide
• Community: Naitonwide
• Basin: Statewide
• Title: Introduction to Flood Proofing; An Outline of Principles and Methods
• Date: 4/1/1967
• Prepared By: The University of Chicago Center for Urban Studies
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Educational/Technical/Reference Information

58

Flood ProofinK Benefits and Costs
To be economically sound, the incremental benefits which would accrue from flood
proofing a structure should equal or exceed the cost of flood pl"oofing. A survey analysis
of Bristol, Tennessee-Virginia, showed that flood proofing could be economically feasi-
ble and could be considered as an alternative to flood control programs.
Community Benefit-Cost Finding-s.-Certain substantial structures in Bristol which
represented large investments and would suffer heavy losses if flooded, were found to
be the structures that could be most readily flood proofed. It was shown that selective
flood proofing of these structures would result in extremely high benefit-cost ratios. Six-
teen structures in Bristol were found to account for over 62 per cent of the total potential
damage from a recurrence of the 1929 flood of record and 36 per cent of the total poten-
tial damage from the regional flood.
Subsequent studies of the feasibility of flocx:l proofing selected structures in four
other communities have been carried out by the cities with teclmical assistance by the
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1 In these studies, flood proofing was considered as a part
of a comprehensive plan for flood damage prevention. It was employed in these plans
primarily to reduce the residual damage that remains after partial protection by a flO<Xi
control project.
In Athens, Tennessee, an analysis of the feasibility of flood proofing several of the
substantially constructed buiWings showed that in the course of time~ the benefits in
flood damage avoided would outweigh the initial cost of flood proofing by approximately
5 to 1. Similar ratios of benefits to costs for flood proofing selected buildings were
found in other studies.
Benefit-Cost Factors. -Though the economic feasibility of flocx:l. proofing has been
demonstrated for substantial buildings in several small cities, the comparative costs
of flood proofing particular buildings will vary considerably depending upon:
1. Local flood characteristics,
2. The type and size of the structure to be flood proofed,
3. The extent of efforts to make the measures esthetically pleasing, and
4. The financial terms of capital invested in flood proofing.
Correspondingly, the potential benefits that would accrue would vary with:
1. The amount of investment in the structure,
2. The intensity of use, and
3. The elevation to which the flood proofing measures are carried.
The economic feasibility of a flood proofing plan for a speci1lc building should be based
on an evaluation of the above factors for the particular building. Once the potential flow
of benefits has been established on an average annual basis and the average annual cost
estimated, the feasibility of flood proofing can be expressed in benefit.cost terms.
Tax Considerations.-Another point that deserves attention is the tax aspect of flood
proofing. At present, the attitude of the Internal Revenue Service toward flood proofing
measures appears to be generally favorable. The amount of depreciation allowed and
the rate of depreciation would be influenced by the nature of the material used.
The main point is that the expenses of flood proofing could to some extent be used
to reduce onel s tax liability. This fact might lower the real cost of flood proofing and
might influence the decision on whether or not to flood proof. Local Internal Revenue
Offices should be consulted to determine the specific tax effect of flood proofing a given
building,

lIn addition to Bristol, the communities studied were: Athens, Redbank-White Oak,
and Sevierville, all in Tennessee, and Coeburn in Virginia.