Success Stories IV Left
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MITIGATION SUCCESS STORIES INTHE UNITED STATES Edition 4 • January , 2002 Mitigation Success Stories / i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The spirit of cooperation among the individuals, agencies and organizations who contributed to this publication serves as an example of the inter-disciplinary approach of multi-objective management which is so essential to the success of hazard mitigation. Special appreciation is extended to the driv- ing force behind this effort, Association of State Floodplain Managers’ Flood Mitigation Committee Chairs Mark Matulik (Colorado) and Bob Boteler (Mississippi). The following were helpful in the development and production: The Contributing Authors FEMA, Federal lnsurance and Mitigation Administration ECO Planning, Inc. Synergy Ink Ltd This publication is available free on the ASFPM website at www.floods.org Reproduction with credit is permitted. The opinions contained in this volume are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the funding or sponsoring organizations. Use of trademarks or brand names in these stories is not intended as an endorsement of the products. Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. 2809 Fish Hatchery Road, Suite 204 Madison WI 53713 (608) 274-0123 • Fax (608) 274-0696 Email: [email protected] Website: www.floods.org Edition 4 • January 2002 ii / Mitigation Success Stories INTRODUCTION MITIGATION SUCCESS STORIES A joint project of the Association of State Floodplain Managers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Mitigation effectively lessens the potential for future flood damages by breaking the damage-repair-damage cycle. For over two decades, mitigation activities have been implemented across the country to save lives, reduce property damage and lessen the need for recovery funding. In many cases, mitigation success has been achieved following devastating disasters, when local officials and the general public have realized the need to effect change in their community. Major efforts to reduce flood damage in the nation include programs such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. Of particular note is FEMA’s funding of local acquisition programs, which have resulted in the relocation of 30,000 floodprone structures since 1993. Certainly structural projects have their place as well, such as dams, levees and locks undertaken by such agencies as the Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resource Conservation Service and others. In the 21st Century, more and more communities are mitigating flood damage through a combination of approaches. As our country grows, flood damages are ever increasing. Annual flood losses in the United States continue to worsen, despite 75 years of federal flood control and 30 years of the National Flood Insurance Program. The general trend is for flood losses to increase every dec- ade. Even though floods are the single most predictable natural hazard, the cost of flood damages per capita has doubled over the past century. Our average annual flood losses are currently estimated at $6 billion. Something must be done! Early mitigation activities, which focused on preventing loss of life, were being implemented as early as the 1880’s. For instance, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, built the famous "Johnstown Incline Plane" in 1891 to lift people, horses and wagons to safety after a 37 foot wall of water hit the Conemaugh Valley in 1889. That flood killed more than 2,200 people! The Incline Plane carried people to safety dur- ing the 1936 and 1977 floods in Johnstown. It is now a focal point of an economic resurgence for the community. Mitigation Success Stories, Edition 4 showcases examples of natural hazard mitigation activities and publicizes the benefits of mitigation successes across the country from 39 communities in 24 states. The examples included in this document can serve as models for other communities and can provide decision-makers with valuable information about how to achieve natural hazard reduction. A Glossary of Terms at the back of the document provides definitions for common terms and abbreviations used throughout the document. We applaud the contributing authors for showcasing their hazard mitigation activities. Their effort and assistance made it possible to develop this document by providing factual and compelling evidence that hazard mitigation is working in the United States. Association of State Floodplain Managers and FEMA are pleased to provide this information for the benefit of communities and citizens who continue to live and work "in harm's way". We hope that the success stories presented here will encourage other communities to invest in hazard mitigation activities that ultimately will save lives, reduce property damage and reduce disaster costs. Mitigation Success Stories / iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Alaska Alakanuk Village: Erosion Stabilization and Flood Mitigation Project ................................................................................................1 Arizona Maricopa County: Legislative Action ........................................................................................................................................................................3 Tax Levy ......................................................................................................................................................................................4 Flood Control District..................................................................................................................................................................4 Phoenix and Vicinity Flood Control Project..................................................................................................................................5 Indian Bend Wash ......................................................................................................................................................................5 Cassandro Dam Wash ..................................................................................................................................................................6 California Napa County: Flood Protection and Watershed Improvement Project................................................................................................9 Sacramento County: Dry Creek Parkway Acquisitions, Elevations and Elevation Reimbursements ..................................................11 Colorado Otero County: Otero County Acquisitions ........................................................................................................................................13 Delaware Statewide: Elevation and Relocation of Coastal Repetitive Loss Properties ......................................................................................15 Florida Collier County and the City of Tallahassee: Elevation and Acquisition ..............................................................................................17 Sarasota County: Bahia Vista/Lockwood Ridge Floodplain Reclamation Project ..............................................................................18 Georgia Dougherty County: Flint River Acquisition Project ..........................................................................................................................21 Illinois Petersburg, Illinois: PORTA High School Community Problem Solving (CmPS) Team ....................................................................23 Iowa Cedar Falls: Cedar River Flood Management Using an Invisible Flood Control Wall ........................................................................25 Louisiana Covington: Elevation and Acquisitions ............................................................................................................................................27 East Baton Rogue: Elevation and Acquisitions ................................................................................................................................29 Jefferson Parish: Drainage Canal and Pump Station Improvements ................................................................................................30 Mandeville: Dry Floodproofing........................................................................................................................................................31 St. James Parish: Drainage Projects ................................................................................................................................................33 Maryland Allegany County: Lonaconing Stream Restoration and Greenway Park Development Project............................................................37 Michigan Spaulding Township: Flint River Flood Control Project....................................................................................................................39 Vassar: Elevations............................................................................................................................................................................40 iv / Mitigation Success Stories / Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Minnesota Breckenridge: Ottertail and Bois de Souix Rivers Flood Management Using an Invisible Flood Control Wall ..................................43 East Grand Forks: Red River Flood Management Using an Invisible Flood Control Wall..................................................................44 East Saint Peter: Commercial Buyouts ............................................................................................................................................45