[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
/ V t-/ I ='e- FIA-8 March 1981 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development i r Off ice of Policy Development and Research Evaluation of the Economic, Social and Environmental Effects of Floodplain Regulations '%j federal emergency management agency Ai federal insurance administration COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT REFLECT T14E VIEWS OF THE CONTRACTOR WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FACTS AND THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA PRESENTED HEREIN, AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT OR THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY. Evaluation of the Economics, Social and Environmental Effects of Floodplain Regulations U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA Federal Emergency Management Agency COASTAL SERVICE CENTER Federal Insurance Administration 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 Property of CSC Library U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 FOREWORD Ninety percent of the natural disasters in this country are flood related. These costs have continued to escalate dramatically with the increasing development of flood plain areas. While man has always tended to locate near the water Is edge, this tendency becomes a major problem as buildings rapidly spring up along the beaches and rivers of our nation. This study, which tests the hypothesis that adoption of flood plain management regulations can reduce flood losses and generally benefit the ccomunities practicing effective land use management, points out that through the adoption of flood. plain management. regulations we can '- -- ---- -, dramatically reduce the current costs of flood disasters and relief and stop the escalating price that this nation is paying. It is a warning that must be heeded if property and lives are to be saved. While this study does not specifically discuss the Federal Insurance Administration or the National Flood Insurance Program, it does indicate that the basic premise of that program - that effective flood plain management can reduce the high cost of flood hazard losses -- is valid. This was the premise upon which Congress based the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended. As a requirement for qualifying for flood insurance protection, a community must adopt and enforce effective flood plain management regulations to safeguard their citizens and reduce future flood losses. This quid pro quo was built into the program as a mans of encouraging State and local governments to manage their flood plain areas in ways that will protect as well as add to the well-being-of their citizens. In implementing the National Flood Insurance Program, the.Federal Insurance Administration has worked to inform local camunities of the flood hazards in their respective regions and advise local officials of the minimal protective safeguards required. FIA has been accelerating its work with communities taking steps to reduce their vulnerability to flood hazards. When flood losses occur, despite mitigation efforts, FIA's flood insurance policies can provide economic recovery for those families and businesses that experience losses. Mitigation of these hazards and development of an actuarially sound insurance program are ways in which the Federal govern- ment is helping to reduce the national flood disaster and relief costs. 46Y Wevlpr- Acting Administrator Federal Insurance Administration FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Washington D.C. 20472 MAY 2 8 1981' Dear Colleague: I am sending you copies of two research reports recently published by FEMA, Evaluation of Alternative Means of Implementing Section 1362 of the National Flood ftswance Act of 1968 and Evaluation of the Economic, Social and Environmental Effects of Floodplain Regulations. Both reports have been of use in our National Flood Insurance Program. The need for an acquisition program to reduce the hazard to existing properties in special flood risk areas was recognized in the initial report to the President on flood insurance in 1966. The completion of the research project in FY-1980 helped the National Flood Insurance Program start a $5.0 million test program of purchase of flood-damaged properties under Section 1362 authority. This test property acquisition program is continuing this fiscal year while it undergoes evaluation. The first research report concludes that a Section 1362 acquisition program can be a small but effective program that contributes toward National and FEMA objectives in flood hazard mitigation. It evaluates alternative ways of conducting the program and estimates potential contributions and costs. Based on flood insurance claims analysis, properties eligible for purchase are estimated to increase from 1,600 in 1981 to 2000 in the year 2000. Costs of purchasing all eligible properties would rise from $21 million to $27 million. A catastrophic flood year could make these costs five times higher. Only a small, number of the eligible damaged properties, however, actually will be purchased in the test program. The research emphasizes the need for the conduct of this voluntary and complex Federal program in close cooperation with States and local communities. Principal benefits from implementation of the Section 1362 program will be reduction of flood-related expenditures from the Treasury. Communities participating with FEMA in the acquisition program are encouraged to use their floodplains wisely, and considerable relief is given to individuals whose health and economic welfare are threatened by serious, repetitive flooding. Often, acquisition of their flood-damaged properties provides the necessary incentive for relocation from hazardous floodplains. The second report represents the only research effort to date that evaluates, on a National basis, the economic, social, and environmental effects of floodplain regulations in urbarf -ardas'. As such, its findings and conclusions -could -be valuable to those of--you involved in public policy and decision-making or in the technical aspects of floodplain management. As you read this report, it is necessary to keep in mind that what is being evaluated is the National effects of community regulation of the 100-year floodplain and not the effects of floods themselves. Also, the research is not an evaluation of the effects, or the effectiveness, of the National Flood Insurance Program. The National projections of the effects of regulations for the years 1990 and 2000 are .based upon empirical data gathered from 21 case study areas throughout the country. The effects of regulation were taken to be the differences that resulted from three different degrees of regulation: 1) no regulations, where the free market determines floodplain use; 2) moderate regulation in a manner similar to the current minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program; and 3) stringent regulations, that forbid new develop- ment and substantial improvements in the floodplain and corrects inappropriate land uses by removing existing structures. The findings from this research show that with no regulations urban flood losses and population at risk would increase greatly and urbanization would consume a vast amount of floodplain land that is now in open space. Moderate regulations would greatly reduce the rate of increasing urban flood losses, reduce the population at risk, and produce other desirable economic and social effects. These benefits could be achieved while impinging minimally upon the rights and prerogatives of individuals and local governments. Stringent regulations would, by the year 1990, greatly reduce urban flood losses as well as achieve a greater reduction of population at risk. This could only be achieved at some social and economic costs. It appears that a desirable floodplain regulatory policy would consist of the moderate regulatory "approach" to new development supplemented by a "corrective" element to deal with existing inappropriate structures. A corrective element could include a Section 1362 acquisition program. Of course, the type of regulatory approach finally chosen in reality depends upon the individual community's goals and floodplain management objectives. I would appreciate your calling the availability of these reports to the attention of any potential users and researchers. A limited number of additional copies are available free of charge. The Section 1362 report is being made available through the National Technical Information Services. Additional information on the availability of the Section 1362 research report can be obtained by communicating with me: Office of Mitigation and Research Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 Telephone: (202) 653-7860 Information concerning the availability of the Effects of Floodplain Regulations Report can be obtained from: Douglas Lash Federal Insurance, Administration Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472- Telephone: (202) 426-1819 Any comments on the research or reports on its use would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Arthur J. Zeizel, Program Mana ger Water-Related Hazards 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables iv List of Figures vi Acknowledgments vii Abstract viii Chapter 1: Executive Summary With Findings and 1 Conclusions Scope of Research and Methodology 3 Current Conditions in the Case Study Areas 7 Projected Effects of Floodplain Regulations 11 Economic Effects 12 Social Effects 15 Environmental Effects National Urban Perspective 18 Program Implications of Research 23 Chapter 11: Setting for the Research 25 Basic Approaches to Floodplain Management 25 The "Do Nothing" Approach 25 The Structural Approach 25 The Nonstructural Approach 26 The Need for Comprehensive Approach 27 Regulation of Existing Uses 27 Regulation of New Land Uses 31 History and Evaluation of Floodplain Regulations .32 1 Evolution of State and Local Floodplain Regulations 35 Need for the Research 38 Chapter III: The Reseaxch Ap@roach 41 Identification of Potential Effects 44 Congressional Hearings 44 Expert Opinion 51 Judicial Recognition 54 LiteratureSearch 55 Classification and Screening of Potential Effects 59 .TABLE OF CONTENTS,,(continued) Chapter III (continued) Methodology 61 Mathematical Models .6-2 Simulation Models 6-4 Relevance to this Investigation 67 Research Framework 67 Selection of Case Study Areas 68 Case Study Investigations 71 Projection Procedures 72 Formulation of Scenarios 74 Projection Methodology 76 Application to the Nation 79 Chapter IV: Case Study Findings 81 Current Floodplain Regulations 81 Current Occupance Characteristics 85 Housing 85 Population 87 Land Use 89 A National Perspective @94 Economic and Social Characteristics of the Population 97 Housing Characteristics 102 Environmental Characteristics 104 Flood Loss Estimates 108 Residential Losses ill Business Losses Public Losses 113 Relationship to National Estimates 113 Economic Effects of Existing Regulations 114 Property Values: Developed and Undeveloped Lands 114 Flood Proofing Costs 120 Economic Effects on the Community 125 Economic Effects on Existing Structures 126 Demolitons 127 Summary of Case Study Conditions 12.8 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Chapter V: Assessment of the Effects of Flood- plain Regulation 131 Future Occupance 132 Housing 132 Population 135 Land Use 137 Economic Effects of Projected Occupance 139 Flood Losses 139 Development Potential 146 Social Effects .148 Environmental Effects 149 Flood Stages i5o Water Quality 151 Multi-purpose Benefits of Flood'plain Open Space 153 A National Urban Pekspective -154 Housing 156 Population 157 Land Use .158 Flood Losses 160 Findings 162 Housing 163 Population 163 Land Use 164. Flood Losses 165 National Assessment 165 Glossary 167 APPENDICES: A: Judicial Recognition of Effects of Floodplain A-1 Regulation B: Detailed Methodology B-1 C: Real Estate Transactions in the Floodplain C-1 of Bergen County LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Physical and Regulatory Characteristics 6 of Case Study Communities 2. Case Study Sunnaries of the Economic, Social, and Environmental Effects of 13 Floodplain Regulations: 1975-1990 3. National Extrapolations of the Economic, Social, and Environmental Effects of 19 Floodplain Regulations: 1975-1990 4. Classification of identified Effects 45 5. Selected Contacts for Expert Opinion Interviews 52 6. Contacts by Category for Case Study Communities 73 7. Distribution of Dwelling Units in the Case Study Communities, 1975 86 8. Distribution of Population in the Case Study Communities, 1975 88 9. Development in Case Study Communities, 1975 90 10. Distribution of Developed Land Uses in Floodplains and Nonhazard Areas, 1975 92 11. Distribution of Flood Prone Communities by Total Community Population 96 12. Distribution of Flood Prone Communities by Size of Floodplain 98 13. Economic and Social Characteristics of Population in the Case Study Communities 100 14. Average Annual Flood Losses in Case Study Communities, by Category, 1975 112 iv LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table 15. Relationship between Sales Price and Asked Price and Sales Price and Appraised Value for 119 Existing Property in Regulated Floodplains of Bergen County, New Jersey 16i Comparison of the Marketability of Housing in the Floodplain and Nonhazard Areas 121 of Bergen County, New Jersey 17. Benefit/Cost Ratios of Alternative Flood Proofing Solutions for a Small Commercial 123 Building 18. Projected Housing By Scenario: 1975-1990 133 19. Projected Population By Scenario: 1975- 1990 136 20. Projected Change in Developed and Undeveloped Land, By Scenario: 1975-1990 138 21. Projected Average Annual Flood Losses by 140 Community Seczor, By Scenario: 1975-1990 22. Projected U.S. Urban Floodplain Housing 157 Stocks: 1975-1990 23. Projected U.S. Urban Floodplain Population: 159 1975-1990 24. Projected U.S. Urban Floodplain Developed 159 Acres: 1975-1990 25. Projected U.S. Average Annual Urban Flood Losses: 1975-1990 161 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Screening of Identified Effects 2. Alternative Trends in Average Annual Flood Losses for U.S. Urban Floodplains 21 3. Corrective and Preventive Aspects of Floodplain Regulations 28 4. Corrective and Preventive Measures of a Floodplain Management Program 29 5. Location Map of Case. Study Communities 70 vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This investigation was conducted with the assistance of man-,,, persons and organizations. We wish to acknowledge the guidance .and cooperation provi.ded...by.Arthur.J. Zei-zel, Government Techni- cal Representative. Richard W. Krimm, Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance Administration monitored the project. Other FIA personnel who provided information and advice included: Theodore H. Levin, Chief Economist; Curt Chandler, Engineer; Lawrence Zenzinger, Planner; and Richard Boisvert, Consultant to the FIA. Consultants to Sheaffer & Roland, Inc. included: James E. Goddard, Consulting Engineer; Ruth Mack, New York Institute of Public Administration; L. Douglas James, Director, Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University; David Allee, Agricultural Economics Department of Cornell University; and Ruth Wright, Consulting Attorney. Assistance was also provided by regional personnel of the Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, state and local governments, chambers of commerce, private firms, banks, boards of realtors and newspapers too numerous to acknowledge indivi- dually. Individuals who merit special mention for contributions of their considerable expertise were William K. Johnson, Engineer, Hydrologic Engineering Center, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; .and Robert M. Gidez, Economist,-Jack Faucett & Associates. Project staff for Sheaffer & Roland, Inc. included: Frederick J. Roland, Engineer; H. Crane Miller, Lawyer; Raymond H. Brand, Biologist; Joanne Barszewski, Political Scientist; Jonathan Boyer, Architect; J. David Mullan, Economist; Alan Richmond, Community Planner; Judith Stockdale, Environmental Planner; Lee Trunkey, Urban Planner; and William Rust, Environmental Engineer. Prin- cipal investigator s were John R. Sheaffer, Director and Lawrence S. Greenberg, Project Manager, on whom rests the responsibility for technical adequacy. vii ABSTRACT This study evaluates quantitatively the economic, social and environmental effects of regulating the 100-year floodplain. Twenty-three case study communities were selected for analysis according to different locations, flood hazard types, community sizes, and economic conditions. Effects of Flood plain regulations were evaluated by projecting development for 1980 and 1990 under three regulatory scenarios: (1) no,regulations, allowing the free market to determine the 100-year floodplain use; (2) moderate regula-, tions similar to the current FIA regulations; and (3) stringent regulations forbidding new development and substantial improvements to existing structures and, "correcting" past land use decisions which interfere with natural functions of the 100-year floodplain. Economic Effects When no regulations are applied, average annual flood losses increase sharply (29% by 1980; 71% by 1990). Under moderate regulations, the losses in Scenario I would be decreased by 87% in 1980, and by 85% in 1990. Regulations that prevent development produce a small, but measurable absolute decline in average annual flood losses (1% by 1990). Social Effects With no regulations, the total number of housing units in the 100-year floodplain would increase 13% by 1980 and 35% by 1990; population would increase in the 100-year floodplain 12% by 1980 and 29% by 1990. With moderate regulations, this increase in housing would be reduced by 37% in 1980 and by 78% by-1990; the increase in population would be decreased by 43% in 1980 and 41% in 1990. With stringent regulations, housing units in the 100-year floodplain would decline 1% by 1980 and 6% by 1990. Environmental Effects With no regulations there would be a continuing, unlimited conversion of floodplain open land to urban uses and additional 37% by 1990. Moderate regulations would reduce this increase by 36% by 1990. Stringent regulations would not allow any further development of the floodplain, would begin to remove existing development, and would result in a 2F. reduction of developed acres. The study shows that moderate regulations will greatly reduce the rate of increase of flood losses, but will not produce a decline of such losses. If the corrective elements of Scenerio III are added to the moderate regulations, it is probable that the effects would closely approach the absolute decline resulting from stringent regulations. Such a program would allow communities to achieve their comprehensive community development goals, which allow them to reduce their flood losses. It would also reduce national flood losses, as envisioned in Federal legislation since 1936. CHAPTER I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WITH FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Average annual flood losses have continued.to increase in the United States during the last forty years. A Federal in- vestment of $10 billion in structural flood control works (levees, channel improvements, multipurpose reservoirs, etc.) had not achieved a reduction. In 1975 the Water Resources Council esti- mated total average annual flood damages in 1975 at $3.6 billion, $1.2 billion of which were urban flood losses. 1 Escalating flood losses have made it.increasingly evident that a national effort that relied solely on structural measures to reduce flood losses was inadequate. A unified program that employed the full range of floodplain management measures in- cluding floodplain regulations was deemed necessary. Federal initiatives in a unified program include: the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); the Corps of Engineers regulations ER-1120-2-117 with its emphasis on floodplain management; Section 73 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 requiring non- structural considerations; Section 406 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, stating communities must take certain flood damage mitigation actions as a prerequisite for Federal disaster assis- 1Water Resources Council, Estimated Flood Damages, 1975- 2000-Appendix B: Nationwide Re2ort (Washington, D.C.: Water Re- sources Council, 1977) p. 2. TF_e reported 1977 figure for national average annual losses is $3.8 billion. Using the method of adjustment adopted in this study, the figure is deflated to $3.6 billion in 1975. tance; and Executive orders 11296 and subsequently 11988 requiring Federal agencies to consider floodplain management. 1 These actions directed attention to the use of floodplain regulations to reduce flood-losses. Rapid expansion of flood- plain regulatory activity has led to varied speculation concern- ing economic, social and environmental effects of such regulations. The extent of community adoption of floodplain regulations sug- gests that such regulations are addressing perceived needs. On the other hand, the resistance of some communities to the adop- tion of floodplain regulations suggests adverse effects. To es- tablish what the actual effects of regulations are, empirical data on the economic, social, and environmental effects of flood- plain regulations must be gathered. An analys is of past research efforts showed several attempts were undertaken to measure the economic, social, and environmental effects of flooding. How- ever, no research efforts were identified that attempted to eva- luate in a systematic manner the economic, social, and environ- mental effects of floodplain regulations on a national scale. Thus, it was necessary to gather empirical data in field inves- tigations to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the ef- fects of regulating the 100-year floodplain. 2 1For Corps of Engineers regulations ER-1120-2-117, see: Office of the Chief of Engineers, "Investigation, Planning and Development of Water Resources: Alternatives in Flood Related Planning" (Washington, D.C.: August 17, 1970); Executive order 11296 is entitled: "Evaluation of Flood Hazards in Locating Federally Owned or Financed Buildings, Roads, and Other Facili- ties, and Disposing of Federal Lands and Properties" (August 10, 1966); Executive Order 11988 is entitled: "Floodplain Management" (May 24, 1977, issued in 42 FR 101, May 25, 1977). 2 See Glossary (pages167& 168) for definitions of 100-year floodplain and other selected or uncommon terms used in this re- port. Others are not individually referenced. -2- Scope of Research and Methodology The research began with a four phase effort to identify potential effects of floodplain regulations. The candidate ef- fects were gleaned from Congressional hearings records, expert opinion, an assessment of the results of court decisions relating to floodplain regulations, and floodplain management literature. From these sources, a comprehensive list of potential effects of floodplain regulations was compiled (Figure 1). These potential effects were then classified whenever possible, under the headings of economic, social, and environmental effects. Further review and screening of the potential effects produced a listing of selected effects to be evaluated. A case study approach was used to evaluate the selected effects. A total of 23 case studies were visited during the research. However, only data from 21 were included in the evalua- tion tables. The data collected for San Diego County, CA were not of comparable detail with other case studies and therefore could not be included in the evaluation tables with the excep- tion of the one dealing with regulatory characteristics. The data for Bergen County, NJ and its 71 local governments were gathered after the initial analyses for the other case studies were completed. 1 The thrust of the Bergen County effort focused on the financial implications of floodplain locations and regu- lations. These data are more detailed than those gathered in the other case studies and could not be synthesized readily into the analyses. The 21 case studies which form the basis for this evaluation of effects are in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and 1Sixty-seven municipalities and the Hackensack Meadowlands entity participated in the NFIP; 3 local governments did not. -3- Figure 1: Screening of Identified Effects CLASSIFIED EFFECTS SCREENING STEPS EFFCTS EVALUATED ECOMOKIC ZCONMC "P-rota-ct P-r:,.,y from damages Flood Losses* (damages and disruption) re:idon t1al Residential but ines ,;it(oowwr ial./industrial) ausiu*ss son-pr priv= property p"lic facilities :buildxngs *accounts for residual _rOAds bridges lbutable ut il 1,L00 damages attr -24%mrs to low-probability -recreation *"at& will not protect property from catastrophic flood damages W cl;ruptlon.Loaaes @ot*c go ins, and L. 10 sea P-.oZ:ct against disruption Is the Production of goods Protect against disruption In the provision P. of commercial.rvices ti U) Reduce Property Valu*/WarketAbility U 44 Property Value Seduce anticipated profits 04 0 affect no anticipated profits (wind falls. .. in property equity 44 Redu wipe cuts) oocce "Semoments and property taxes for 1- 1-4 affect on marketability/trawfor of real upants Of hazard &rsA Z property XsinLain/pieserv* intViAsic economic 1-100 Of 0 affect@ cc smateements and property taxes property 04 U for occupants of hazard area economic effects on the Community Divert/4eter dovalcFEwtat from community SASs of jobs/ir-dustry zcoocmic Zffects an the Community Loas of tax base affect on total community development not divert development from CO=uMitY--wL1l -popula tioc contain development in community RZ -bou in& units protection of tax base [-4 > -otb:l developseut cost of Compliance @-4 affect an property tax base inamas cost of construction 0 Lncre.., cost of local vov rament Z Saul tration CAst of Compliance cost for relocating urban infrastructure affect of flood proofing an cost of construction seduce need for structural flood OO0trOl. expenditures Seduce disaster Aid expenditures for evacuation 0 belief U Z SOCIAL SOCIAL shift burden E- Shift busde : effect an disaster aid pay- chi ft burden from general public to for rehabilitation A reconstruction occuWts of hazard area Reduce disaster aid for r*bAbLlLtJktLOM And rococo truction gonta affects Are inequitable Inequity, characteristics of existing hazard burden falls disproportionately an the area occupants (income. dependency. housing disadvantaged (who are disproportionate quality, minorities) occupants of the hazard &rea) Discriminates against mhll comMAlti*s (WhirJ1 coAnot afford flood control works) affect on Dev*lopmant In Basard At" Anooves sequent of population from housing Housing units market Other develpment Divert development fz hazard ares, Protect lives Z Protect 1.1"Was Disincentive to rehab il itat ion/d*t8TLQrM- Z Effect on population in the hazard at" t on of housing, neighborhood affect an populaclon-at-risk ftictect public infrastructure system from disruption protect against disruption of public Mg- affect 00 frobabillt:tloo/&ffoct on deterio- vices (e.g., assessment. Otc-1 L. a housing tack, neighborhoods Maintain/prieserve recreation value of GPM C; Orem W Z affect on public services (a.&., assessments) ra affect an open space recreation opportunities 14Lod Use Cbanga:& pattern Change Land u Divert development to edge Of hazard arm& Raintaim/preserve Open Space Z IMROMUnAL sai.ntain/Preverve anvironmental. Value of open Spa Land Use: affect an open space in hazard area Groundwater rochsrge I Storage a;ity/stormwatdr detention Preservation of an. roomental. Valum of Open r ju2p Kate it W "r quality spa" natural wildlife are". tisheries ecosystem quality )plant =4 animal lift). -wetlands -GwLr,h@S -*at Lee -Caaotlines -wild rivers Syd"logy/nooding lydrelogy/Flooding Avoid rising flood sts"s affect on flood stag Seduce drainage probl@ am Reduce downstream flood&" affect as downetrom flooding Not increase storage capacity profteadly, 9ffect am storage capacity not reduce rwwtf problems PrOfouMd1r (d%w to gAregulated arb"i"UM) -4- represent a range in population, area, flood type, and geographic location. Table 1 tabulates these characteristics. Population growth rates in the case study areas were higher than the national rates of growth. This indicates that there are development pres- sures in the case study areas and that floodplain regulations have the potential to affect future development. If the case study areas would have been remotely located static communities, the effects of floodplain regulation would be small. Prior to the field visits to the case study areas, census material, aerial photos, and flood hazard information were as- sembled and evaluated. During' the field visit this information was supplemented by data extracted from records, files, reports, and by direct observations. Information gathered in the field related to: community goals; social, economic, and environmental characteristics; trends in development patterns; growth trends; land use patterns and pressures; the perception of the flood risk; the extent and character of flood damages; the history of adjustments to floods; and the evolution of floodplain policies, including attitudes toward structural flood control measures. In addition, assessments of land use changes over time were made to gain insights into the compatibility of actual development decisions and articulated development policies. Interviews were held in each study area with a panel of community informants and identified community influentials. 1 In- cluded among the community informants and influentials were mayors, city managers, tax assessors, planners, zoning administrators, building inspectors, bankers, realtors, builders, floodplain resi- dents, newspaper editors, and representatives of voluntary organi- 1Terry N. Clark, CommuniLy Structure and Decision Making: Comparative Analyses (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1968) pp. 471-473. -5- Table 1: Physical and Regulatory Characteristics of Case Study Communities FLOOD HAZARD TYPE TYPE OF REGULATION Case NFIP Coastal Riverine Sub Bldg Bldg Elev Density Reg St. Zon. Study Communities Status Date Hurricane Other Flash Slow Regs Code Pmts Reg Transfer Flway Regs Type Cranston, RI R 10/11/70 x x x x x 0 z Westerly, RI R 7/28/73 x x x +2 0 Northampton, MA E 5/31/74 x 0 yes 0 Wayne Township, NJ R 2/20/73 x x x x 0 PUD x yes 0 Southampton Town,NY R 9/28/73 x x x +2/+4 yes Jersey Shore, PA R 4/6/73 x x x 0 x yes 0 Wheeling, WV E 4/21/76 x x Prince Geo.Co.,MD R 3/4/72 x x x x 0 x x yes Savannah, GA R 5/21/71 x x x +1/2 Sarasota Co., FL R 7/31/71 x x x x x 0 0 Toledo, OH E 12/18/70 x x x x yes 0 Palatine, IL R 2/20/73 x x x x +1 x yes Z Prairie du Chien, wi R 5/22/70 x x x +2 x yes z Orleans Parish, LA R 10/19/71 x x x x 0 0 Tulsa, OK R 11/20/70 x Harris County, TX R 5/26/70 x x x 0 0 Cape Girardeau, MO E 5/31/74 x x x z Omaha Area, NB R 5/8/71 x x x x +1 x yes z Fargo, ND R 4/10/70 x x x x x 0 Arvada, CO R 1/13/72 x x x +2 x x yes 0 Scottsdale, AZ R 9/21/73 x x above x x z San Diego Co., CA E 3/5/71 x x x x x above x yes 0 Total Sample - 7 2 9 13 12 12 18 5 9 11 - E-Emergercy Program; R-Regular Program Elevation above the 100-year flood level in feet z=Floodplain zone; O=Overlay zoning district zations with known interests in floodplain regulations. A pur- pose of the interviews was to elicit views on community goals, policies, and problems which have the potential to affect flood- plain management. Current Conditions in the Case Study Areas Current conditions in the case study areas were similar to assessments of the flood hazards in other.urban areas The 100-year floodplain in the case study areas constituted 20 percent of the total land area.. The 100-year floodplains were 18 per- cent developed, in contrast to the areas outside those floodplains which were 29 percent developed. This difference suggests that the perception of the flood hazard has had some influence on the- development pattern. Perhaps more importantly, it shows the need for preventing further unwise use of the floodplain. According to data obtained from the case study areas, approxi- mately 14 percent of the case study area population, and 13 percent of housing is in the 100-year floodplain. However, because of the existence of units'elevated above grade and multi-story struc- tures, approximately 7 percent of all dwellings and 8 percent of the population are actually at.risk from the 100-year flood event. The floodplains in the study area contain a low percentage of nonwhite population;,half,the percentage found in nonhazard areas. However, dependent population was nearly 7 percent higher in the floodplain than-in the nonhazard area. Household size in the floodplain was 2 percent greater than that of the tota 1 study area; household size at risk averaged 5 percent larger. The mean 1 James E. Goddard, An Evaluation of Urban Floodplains, Ameri- can Society of Civil Engineers Technical Memorandum.No. 19 (New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1973). -7- income of,families and individuals occupying floodplains was 5 percent 1@bwer than those of the nonhazard areas. The local difference could well be greater because this figure includes several communities where sites with direct access to the water bring a premium. Census Block data, which were available for only 13 case studies, indicated that the value of housing tended to be some- what lower in the floodplain than in the nonhazard areas, particu- larly for riverine locations. On the other hand, single family housing and owner-occupied housing was more prevalent in the flood- plain. A higher vacancy rate existed in the floodplain along with higher percentages of older and substandard housing. Average annual flood losses for the case study communities were estimated at $76.6 million. This estimate was based on available data from the Corp s of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service. More than 52 percent of the losses. was to residential development. Commercial and industrial development accounted for 32 percent. Public uses were estimated to experience 16 percent of the losses. The largest case study areas (Harris County and Orleans Parish) comprised 48percent of the total floodplain area represented in the case studies, but accounted for 64 percent of the flood'losses. A detailed analysis of the effects of regulations on property values was beyond the scope of this study. However, based on limited available data in the literature and an analysis in one case study area, market values do not appear to be depressed by the enforcement of existing floodplain regulations. The influence of floodplain regulations on market values of floodplain property can be viewed from either the perspective of the effects on developed property or the effects on undeveloped property. With respect to developed property, floodplain regula- tions exist along with many other regulations and codes which re- -8- late to the property. The existing structures are ."grand- fathered" in (.becoming nonconforming uses) and thus do not have to comply with the regulations and codes unless they require sub- stantial improvements. However, the application of substantial improvement regulations to remove nonconforming uses has not been widespread nor effective. 1- Thus, the effects on market property values would be slight. The greatest potential for floodplain regulations to -affect market propert y values relates to changes in land use, e.g.:, change from undeveloped to developed land or from single family residential uses to higher intensity uses such as shopping centers or high rise apartment buildings. If such desired changes are pre- vented by floodplain regulations, anticipated windfall profits associated with such transactions may not be realized. However, it is important to note that windfall profits associated with land speculation frequently are not realized independent of any regulations. Compliance with the existing floodplain regulations did not appear to be a deterrent to development in the floodplains of case study communities. Development projects that were believed to be economically feasible were constructed in accordance with the pro- visions of the floodplain regulations. In a special analysis of flood proofing alternatives on a proposed small commercial building in Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania, it was shown that construction costs would increase between 6 and 16 percent to flood proof to the 100- year flood elevation.2 However, these increased costs of flood 1 SheAffer & Roland, Inc., Alternatives for Implementing Substantial Improvement Definitions (Washington,-D.-C.: Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Admin- istration, 1978). 2 Sheaffer & Roland, Inc., Economic Feasibility of Flood Proofing: An Analysis of a*Small Commercial-Building (Washington, D.C.: Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1978). -9- proofing were determined to be more than offset by anticpated re- ductions in either future flood losses or insurance costs. An analysis of flood proofing in Canada showed similar results. A separate study of the substantial improvement provisions of floodplain regulations showed they did.hot have any significant effects.2 At the existing threshold of 50 percent of market values, it wasestimated that the total number of residential structures substantially improved each year would not exceed 13,600 nationwide. Of this total only an estimated 4,200 or 30 percent would result from natural disasters. Projected Effects In Case Study Areas A scenario method was used to forecast development conditions in the near (1980) and longer term (1990) future for specific areas under three sets of regulatory conditions. These conditions are presented as three regulatory scenarios. Projections of population and future land use patterns were made for each case study area from the information gathered during the field investigations. These projections provided the basis for the forecasts of population, housing, and developed areas (land use) that were formulated-for 1980 and 1990 target years under the three regulatory scenarios. Differences between the scenarios were taken to be indicators of the effects of different degrees of floodplain regulations. The three scenarios are comprised of (1) allowing the free market to determine the 100-year floodplain use with no regulations 1James F. McLaren, Ltd., Flood Proofing: A Component of Flood Damage Reduction (Ottawa, Canada: Department of Fisheries and Environment, 19f8). 2Sheaffer & Roland, Substantial Improvement, p. 3 _10- (Scenario 1), (2) regulating the 100-year floodplain in a manner similar to the current minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (Scenario II), and (3) forbidding new develop- ment and substantial improvements in the 100-year floodplain and 11correcting" past land use decisions which interfere with the na- tural functions of the floodplain by. removing unwarranted struc- tures (Scenario III). A further difference between Scenarios II and III is that Scenario II allows vertical adjustments of development (by eleva- tion or flood proofing to the regulatory level) or a horizontal shift of development out of the 100-year floodplain. Scenario III on the other hand, permits only horizontal adjustment, prevent- - ing further development within the 100-year floodplain. This ex- tends to both new construction and any proposed substantial im- provements. Therefore, Scenario III may not be deemed to be a reasonably viable option,just as Scenario I (no regulations) is normally not. However, from a research,perspective it is desir- able to cover the extreme range of theoretical regulatory options. To avoid obscuring the effects of a particular scenario, variations in regulations among local governments were not con- sidered. This eliminates the ability of communities to compete with respect to the stringency of regulations. Each scenario was assumed to be applied uniformly throughout the nation. All regulations were assumed to be properly administered and enforced. The differences between the evaluated effects for the three regu- latory scenarios for the case study communities are presented in Table 2. To facilitate compar isons, both amounts and percentages of change from 1975 to 1980 and 1990 are presented. Economic Effects When no regulation s are applied (Scenario I), average annual flood losses increase sharply. It is-projected that flood losses Table 2: Case Study Summaries of Economic, Social, and Environmental Effects of Floodplain Regulations: 1975-1990 1980 1990 scenario scenario Scenario scenario scenario Scenario Characteristic I Urban Flood Losses a (Avg. Annual-, in millions) $ 76.6 $ 98.6 79.4 $ 76.4 $131.0 $ 84.6 $ 76.1 Change from 1975 M +29 +4 b +71 +10 -1 Housing Units 162,800 184,100 176,300 160,500 219,700 197,900 156,700 Change from 1975 M +13 +8 -1 +35 +22 -4 Housing Units at Risk 8.7,400 .98,400 85,700 85,800 116,500 83,300 83,600 Change from 1975 M +13 -2 -2 +33 -5 -4 Population 480,500 537,200 513,100 470,200 619,300 562,900 453,700 Change from 1975 M +12 .+7 -2 +29 +17 -6 Population at Risk 265,500 301,100 261,000 261,100 354,000 247,100 247,900 Change from 1975 M +13 -2 -2 +33 -7 -7 Developed Acres (loss of open space) 59,300 67,900 64,500 58,900 81,400 73,500 58,300 Change from 1975 (%) +15 +9 -1 +37 +24 -2 a = flood losses expressed in 1975 dollars b = less than one-half of one percent decline under Scenario I would increase 29 percent over 1975 levels by 1980 and 71 percent by 1990. Approximately 50 percent of these increased average annual fl ood losses would be suffered by resi- dences. Moderate regulations (Scenario II), however, greatly limit the rate of growth in average annual flood losses. "The losses increase by only 4 percent.over 1975 levels by 1980 and only 10 percent by 1990. The reduction in the rate of flood loss increases is asso- ciated with the reduction in exposure to damages from the 100- year flood. This reduction in exposure is a result of regula- tions and is achieved partly by horizontal shifts of development to locations outside the floodplain and partly by vertical shifts, i.e., elevating and flood proofing buildings. Damages do increase slowly, however, because buildings shifted vertically are still vulnerable to greater flood events. To the degree that moderate regulations permit development within the 100-year flood- plain, there remains the potential for future losses from floods greater than the 100-year flood. Regulations that prevent development (Scenario III) produce a small, but measurable, gradual decline in average annual flood losses over the long term because of the corrective elements which begin to reduce the number of existing floodplain structures. This decline reaches approximately one percent by 1990. Scenario Il has no workable corrective elements and still allows flood proofed development. Thust it shows a small increase in flood losses. These increases are significantly lower than-those which would be experienced under Scenario I. While regulation would divert development from the 100-year floodplain in selected study areas, such development can be ac- -13- IV commodated within the economic reg.ion.of such study areas. This is true even for those case study areas that had limitations on alternative sites for development. For example, Wheeling and Jersey Shore have steep topography and Orleans Parish has most of its remaining undeveloped land in the 100-year.floodplain, yet they would also be able to accommodate projected development.. The effect of floodplain regulations on the tax base of the study areas was estimated to be small. Based. upon data drawn from some case studies, it appears that elevation and flood proofing requirements increase residential property value by.as much as 10 percent. This reflects a combination of increased investments and reduced flood losses. In Scenario II, the tax base would not be reduced by complying with flood proofing regu- lations and conceivably could be expanded to reflect the increased value of flood proofed structures. The tax base in a local coastal hazard area, however, could'be reduced under Scenario III if de- velopment were dependent solely on exposure to the water. Social Effects Many social effects of floodplain regulations are directly related to the number of people and their property which are located within the 100-year floodplain. Thus, forecasts of housing and population at risk provide insights into potential social effects. Regulations have profound effect on the number of housing units in the 100-year floodplain. With no regulations, Scenario 1, the total number of housing units that would be located inthe 100-year floodplain would increase from 162,800 in 1975 to 184,100 by 1980 and 219,700 by 1990. This represents a 13 percent increase by 1980 and a 35 percent increase by 1990. Moreover,the popula- tion residing in the 100-y'ear floodplain would increase from 480,500 in 1975 to@537,200,, or 12 percent,by 1980 and to 619,300, or 29 percent,by 1990. -14- With moderate regulations, Scenario II, the number of ' hous- ing units and population residing inthe 100-year floodplain would increase at a slow rate. Housing units would increase from 162,800 in 1975 to 176,300, or 8 percent,by 1980 and to 197,900,or 22 per- cent,by 1990. Population would increase from 480,500 in 1975 to 513,100 in 1980 and 562,900 in 1990i 7 and 17 percent increases, respectively. Thus, with moderate regulations, Scenario II, as compared with no regulations, Scenario I, by 1990 there would be 10 percent fewer housing units and 9 percent less population re- siding in the 100-year floodplain. Moreover, housing units and population at risk would decline by 1990 relative to their 1975 levels under Scenario II due to the removal of deteriorated units at risk and their replacement with new units not at risk. Simi- lar declines would be achieved under Scenario III. .Relative to 1975, stringent regulations, Scenario.III,would result in fewer housing units and less population residing in the .100-year floodplain. The number of housing units would decline from 162,800 in 1975 to 160,500, or 1 percent,by 1980 and to 156,700, or 4 percent,by 1990. Population in turn would decrease from 480,500 in 1975 to 470,200, or 2 percent,by, 1980 and to 453,700, or 6 percent,by 1990. In contrast to no regulations, Scenario I,, the number of housing units by 1990 under stringent regulations would be 29 percent fewer and the population would be 27 percent lower in the 100-Vear fl oodplain. Compared with moderate regu- lations, by 1990 there would be 21 percent fewer housing units and 19 percent less population in the 100-year floodplain under stringent regulations. The effects on residential occupance at risk are even more profound with no regulations compared with either moderate or stringent floodplain regulations. The number of housing units and population at risk when no regulations, Scenario I, are ap- plied would by 1990 be 39 and 44 percenthigher, respectively, -15- than residences and persons at risk,under either moderate, Scenario II, or stri.ngent,.Scena.rio II.Ir regulations., -New development that would have occurred within the 100-year floodplain would adjust in two ways. With Scenario II, some development would take place within the floodplain but would be elevated or flood proofed to the level of the 100-year flood. These adjustments, in essence, remove the development from the defined,risk area. The remaining development would be shifted outside the floodplain. This horizontal shift nay be in response to hazard awareness or may reflect, in part, a belief that the cost of flood proofing is not warranted. Under Scenario III all new development would be required to be located outside the hazard area. Environmental Effects Environmental effects of floodplain regulations can be re- lated to acreage and their magnitude can be determined from the quantity of open space in floodplains. The development of the floodplain could diminish the inherent environmental values which are provided by open floodplains. Under Scenario I, there would be a continuing, unlimited conversion of floodplain open land to urban uses; Scenario II permits limited conversion. This diminishes the environmental benefits that are provided by the natural floodplain ecosystem. Scenario III would not allow any further development of the floodplain and would begin the slow process of removing existing development. The number of floodplain acres that would be developed under Scenario I is 22,100 acres by 1990, or 37 percent more than the 59,300 acres developed as of 1975. With moderate regulations, 14,200 acres would be developed in the 100-year floodplain by 1990, or 24 percent inore than 1975. This is 10 percent fewer developed acres than no regulations under Scenario I. Under -16- stringent regulationst Scenario IU, there would be 1,000 fewer developed acre.% by 19_9_0 than in 19.75, or a 2 percent reduction. This mean.5 there would be more floodplain open space in 1990 than existed in 19.75. Scenario III would not permit any additional conversion of open land to development, thereby preserving the environmental effects and even improving them through the removal of existing* structures. Examples of these environmental effects include: the storage of flood water,. the recharge of flood water to the groundwater reservoirs, the preservation or enhancement of channel cross sections, and the maintaining of floodplain eco- systems. New floodplain development under Scenarios I and II can in- crease the discharged pollutants into waterways though in differ- ing degrees. This resultslin part, from the reduction in the purifying properties of the floodplain acreage and the increase in runoff having direct access to the waterways. These effects diminish the value of the 100-year floodplains as open space which provides wildlife.and recreational benefits. Under Scenario III, the discharge of pollutants'would not increase and the open space values of the floodplain would be preserved and even enhanced. National Urban Perspective The case studies can be regarded as a sample that is skewed toward large communities. This permits limited extrapolation of case study findings to those parts of the nation where develop- ment will take place and where the effects of floodplain regula- tions can be measured. The national projections, presented in Table 3, are limited to the following characteristics: urban flood losses, housing, -17- Table 3: National Extrapolations of the Economic, Social, and Environmental Effects of Floodplain Regulations: 1975-1990. 1975 1980 1990 Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Characteristic 11 111 1 111 Urban Flood Losses a (Avg. Annual, in billions) $1.215 $1.564 $1.260 $ 1.213 $2.079 $1.341 $1.208 'Change from 1975 +29 +4 b +71 +10 -1 Housing Units 7.4 8.3 8.0 7.5 9.9 8.9 7.0 (millions) Change from +13 +9 -1 +35 +22 -4 1975 (%) Housing Units OD at Risk(millions) 4.0 4.5 3.8 3.9 5,3 3.8 3.8 Change from 1975 (%) +13 -2 -2 +33 -5 -4 Population 24.1 27.0 25.8 2j.6 31.1 28.3 22.8 (millions) Change from +1 2 +7 -2 +29 +17 -6 1975 Population at Risk (millions) 13.3 15.1 13.1 13.1 17.8 12.4 12.5 Change from 1975 +13 -2 -2 +33 -7 -6 Developed Acres (loss of open space,in millions) 4.3 5.0 4.7 4,3 6.0 5.4 4.3 Change from 1975 (%) +15 +9 -1 +37 +24 -2 a = flood losses expressed in 1975 dollars b = less than one-half of one percent decline housing at risk,populationtpopulatiOn at risk, and developed Acreage.. The national projectionsare derived from the appli- cation of the rates of change of the aggregate. case study pro- jections in each-evaluated category to national estimates for each.scenario by 1980 and 1990. Hence, the percent changes in Table 3 correspond to those shown in Table 2. This type of extrapolation allows one to estimate the magnitude of the effects of floodplain regulations nationally. Although the case study communities are not a random sample and are skewed toward large communities with flood problems, they appear to provide a useful forecast of national trends. The results closely parallel the Water Resource Council estimates of future flood losses. With no regulati ons, it was found that urban flood losses, housing and population at risk would increase dramatically. Urbanization of the floodplain would consume a vast amount of open space. Moderate regulations (Scenario II) were found to suppress the rate of increase in urban flood losses and reduce housing and population at risk. Stringent regulations (Sce- nario III) were found to reduce urban flood losses as well as housing and population at risk even more. Stringent regulations would preserve and enlarge floodplain open space, whereas urbani- zation of the floodplain would continue at a reduced rate under moderate regulations. Property values would be minimally affected by moderate regulations while,to some extent, expected windfall profits would be cut by stringent regulations. In essence, mod- erate regulations produce an array of desirable economic and social effects. These effects.are iniproved by stringent regulations which, in addition, produce environmental and recreational bene- fits. Alternative trends in average annual flood losses are de- picted in Figure 2. With no regulations, Scenario I, average annual urban flood losses would increase by $864 million, from _19- Figure 2: Alternative Trends in Average Annual Flood Losses for U.S. Urban Floodplains a (Average annual flood losses in 1975 were 1.215 millon.) 42,077 2.000. 4Y 0 U') 1.800. C3 0) 46 0*0 1.600. E .C V) 1,400! 0 (D U) 0 1,340 00 SCE SCENARIO III 1.205 1200. C < 1,0001 1975 1980 1985 1990 a For existing and future structures within the currently delineated flood hazard area. SCE"A"" -20- $1.2 billio n in 1975 to $2.1 billion by 1990. Under moderate regulations, Scenario II, average annual urban flood losses would increase from the $1.2 billion level in 1975 to $1.3 billion by 1990, an increase of $125 million. National compliance with mini- mum FIA type regulations (Scenario II) would bring about a re- duction in average annual flood losses of $738 million compared with Scenario I Under stringent regulations, Scenario III, average annual urban flood losses would decline from 1975 levels by $10 million by 1990, from $1.215 billion in 1975 to $1.205 billion. Thus by 1990, under Scenario III, there would be $871 million less in average annual urban flood losses compared with no regulations. These conditions reflect, in part, the effects of floods greater than the 100-year flood. It is reported that floods greater than the 100-year flood have caused 61 percent of the losses experienced in the United States during the period from 1959 to 1974.1 The distribution of flood losses from these un- usual and disastrous events included both structures within and outside the 100-year floodplain. However, if uniform distri- bution of development is assumed for the entire floodplain, it appears that the losses would occur primarily within the 100- year floodplain. The number of housing units at risk from the 100-year flood with no regulations, Scenario Iwould increase by 1.3 million from 4.0 million in 1975 to 5.3 million by 1990. Population at risk with no regulations would increase by 4.5 million from 13.3 million in 1975 to 17.8 million by 1990. Thus, an additional 4.5 million persons and 1.3 million housing units would be sub- 1Sheaffer & Roland, Inc., Flood Hazard Mitigation Through Safe Land Use and Construction Practices (Washington, D.C.: De- partment of Housing and Urban Development, 1976) Table 9, p. 49. -21- ject to risk from the 100-year flood. Under both moderate and stringent regulations, the number of housing units and people at risk from the 100-year flood by 1990 would be reduced compared to the number at risk in 1975 by about 200,000 housing units and 900,000 people, respectively. Compared with Scenario I there would be about 1.6 million fewer housing units and 5.3 million fewer people at risk. The number of developed acres in the floodplain would increase with no regulations, Scenario I', from 4.3 million in 1975 to' 6.0 million by 1990, an approximate increase of 1.7 million. This is the amount of open space land that would be converted to developed uses in the nation's urban floodplains by 1990. Because develop- ment would be allowed in the floodplain under the moderate regula- tions of Scenario II., albeit free from 100-year flood losses, the number Qf open space acres converted to developed uses would be 1.1 million by 1990. Under stringent regulations,@Scenario II,I, there would be.a recoverv.of 69,000 acres in open space in the 100-year floodplain by 1990 over the 1975 level., In compari- son with Scenario I and II, this represents, respectively, 1.7 and 1.1 million fewer developed acres in the nation's 100-year floodplains. Program Implications of Research Since 1936, flood control and flood-related statutes enacted by the Congress have sought to reduce and alleviate damage caused by floods. The goals expressed by the Congress are epitomized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, stating that the purposes of the Act are to: -22- encourage.State and local government to make appropriate land 'use adjustments to constrict the development of land which is exposed to flood damage and minimize damage caused by'flood losses,. (and) (2) guide the development of proposed future construction, where practicable, away from locations which are threatened by flood hazards.1 The research results show that Scenario II will greatly re- duce the rate of increase of flood losses, but will not produce a decline in such losses. To achieve a decline in the present level of flood losses (hazard mitigation), a strong national effort would have:,to be-made to chanqe existing land use in the urban floodplains. Such corrective elements-can be achieved along with other,floodplain management measures through technical and financial assistance. If the corrective elements of Scenario III and the provi- sion of technical assistance are added to Scenario II, it is probable that the effects would closely approach those of Sce- nario III. Such a program would assist communities to achieve their comprehensive community development goals while at the same time allow them to reduce their flood losses. It'would also reduce national flood losses, a goal envisioned in Federal flood-related legislation enacted since 1936. 1National Flood Insurance Act, as Amended, sec 1302 (e), 82 Stat. 572 (1968). -23- CHAPTER II SETTING FOR THE RESEARCH An evaluation of the economic, social, and environmental effects of floodplain regulations is aided by an understanding of the basic approaches to floodplain management. These basic approaches are presented to demonstrate the range of options available and to help identify the potential role of floodplain regulations. The role of floodplain regulations will vary with the regional settings. This research is limited to evaluating the effects in urban areas. These are the areas where regula- tions generally are applied. Basic Approaches to Floodplain Management There are three basic approaches that individuals and com- munities can use in response to their flood hazard. The ap- proaches are: (1) to do nothing; (2)-to build flood control structures to mitigate flood losses; and (3) to manage the use of floodplains (n nonstructural" actions) to mitigate flood losses. Each of these approaches and combinations is involved to a degree in the current national floodplain management pro- gram which is a multiple means effort. The "Do Nothing" Approach The ndo nothing" approach relies on market forces to effect an equilibrium between benefits of floodplain occupance and the flood losses that are experienced. In this case, losses sus-- tained by floodplain occupants, whether private or public, are not mitigated by relief of any kind, by the construction of any flood control facilities, or by regulation of floodplain use. -25- Experience has shown that the acceptability of the "do nothing" approach in urban areas p4les when heavy flQod loases Are actually experienced, Thus, the "do nothing" approach is more of a theo- retical choice than a viable choice. The Structural Approach The structural approach to floodplain management is based on the premise that floodplain occupance is desirable, if not necessary.' It, therefore, seeks to reduce (or "correct") the impact of a flood by structural works that are designed to con- trol or modify the flood to reduce the risk to the floodplain occupants. The structural approach to floodplain management was the one initially pursued on a national level. However, experience has led to a widespread recognition that sole reliance on struc- tural solutions results in an escalation of average annual flood losses and corresponding demands for new structural solutions. It has become evident that it is possible to create flood prob- lems faster t han they can be solved by the construction of flood control structures alone. To illustrate, a$10 billion investment in a nationwide net- work of structural flood control works between 1936 and 1977 (e.g., levees, channel improvements, multi-purpose reservoirs) has not reduced the magnitude of flood losses in the United States.1 Annual flood losses' for the nation between 1971 and 1974 averaged $1,857 million per year. 2 The Water Resources Council estimated average annual flood damages in 1975 at $3,616 million; of this amount, $1,215 were urban flood damages. 3 Statement of the President accompanying Executive Order 11988, 24 May 1977. 2U. S. Weather Bureau, Atlas. 3Water Resources Council, Flood Damages. -26- Disaster relief payments to flood victip.9 also increased and now average $235 million per year, The Nonstructural Approach The nonstructural approach promotes land use and construc- tion practices which result in an occupance pattern with decreased vulnerability to the flood hazard. By modifying the land use and/or flood proofing structures, a community reduces the risk associated with the 100-year flood hazard. Uses deemed un- desirable for the floodplain are located in the nonhazard areas. The Need for a Comprehensive Approach To address the problem of increasing losses, safe land use and construction practices must be incorporated into a compre- hensive floodplain management program along with structural flood control works. One element of such a program is,floodplain regulations. When'carefully analyzed, floodpl ain regulations are seen to include both preventive and corrective elements. The relationships of these elements are illustrated in Figure 3. In essence, floodplain re gulations have the same thrusts as overall comprehensive floodplain management. The similarity can be seen by comparing Figure 4, a diagram of the comprehen- sive Tennessee Valley Authority program, with Figure 3.. Regulation of Existing Uses The corrective aspects of floodplain regulations include removal of nonconforming uses through substantial improvement regulations and flood proofing existing structures. The ef- fectiveness of substantial improvement regulations to remove 1Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, based on 1971 through 1977 data. -27- Figure 3 Corrective and Preventive Aspects of Floodplain Regulations FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS CORRECTIVE MEASURES EVENTIVE MEASURES oc REMOVAL OF NON-CONFORM-ING FLOOD REGULATION OF FLOOD PROOFING OF USES THROUGH SUBSTANTIAL PROOFING NEW LAND USE NEW STRUCTURES. IMPROVEMENT REGULATIONS EXISTING (SAFE LAND USES) (SAFE CONSTRUCTION- STRUCTURES 'PRACTICES) ............... Figure _4..- Corrective and Preventive Measures of a Floodplain Management Program FLOOD-DAMAGE PREVENTION CORRECTIVE MEASURES] PREVEN`TfVE'MEASURES] OTHER FLOOD PLAIN OTHER FLOOD CONTROL CORRECTIVE MEASURES REGULATIONS PPEVENTIVE MEASURES DAMS & RESERVOIRS EVACUATION PLANNING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS LEVEES OR WALLS FLOOD FORECASTING ZONING. INCENTIVES AND t1j I I I SUBDIVISION. FLOODINSURANCE HEALTH REGULATIONS CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS FLOOD PROOFING PUBLIC,EDUCATION INFORMATION WATERSHED URBAN OTHERS TREATMENT REDEVELOPMENT OTHERS OTHERS Source: Tennessee Valley Authority (1962) nonconforming uses from the special'flood hazard area generally is overestimated. To illustrate, a detailed analysis of this issue in related research found that, on an average annual basis, only 13,600 housing units located on the 100-year floodplain would be either damaged..�ubstantially by fires, floods or other natural disasters or would be candidates for substantial improve- 1 ments. The study also found that in planning and zoning agen- cies such regulations are not significant. The record is one of minimal enforcement due to political and financial constraints. However, even were enforcement 100 percent effective, only 15 per- cent of all existing residential units located within the special flood hazard area would be affected by substantial improvement regulations over a 50-year-period. The mitigation of average annual flood losses to existing buildings through the retrofitting of flood proofing measures is carried out on a limited basis in selected areas across the nation. A range of potential flood proofing measures is iden- tified in several publications. 2 The decision to r etrofit an existing building with flood proofing measures is prompted gene- rally by economic considerations, e.g., the need to reduce flood losses. In conjunction with its land use and building regulations, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) makes available flood in- surance to existing'structures at subsidized rates. Structures Sheaffer & Roland, Inc., Substantial Improvement, pp. 1-8. 2See Hydrologic Engineering Center,"Institute.for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Physical and Economic Feasibility of Nonstructural Floodplain Management Measures (Davis: March 1978); James F. McLaren, Ltd., Flood Reduction; and John R. Sheaffer, Flood Proofing: An ElemenE in a Flood Damage Re- duction Program.(Chicago: University of Chicago, Center for Urban Studies, 1967). -30- that are in conformance with the regulations can secure insur- ance at actuarial rates. These rates are lower than the sub- sidized rates. Thus', flood proofing of both existing and new commercial buildings may be justified by the reductions in flood insurance premiums that would be realized. To@illustrate sub- sidized rates of 40@ per $100 could be reduced through flood proofing to as low.as 1@ Der $100 based on-actuarial rates when the structure is flood proofed to an elevation 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation. Regulatory aspects of flood proofing measu res are presented. in a Corps of Engineers publication. 1 This.pub lication is written in a format that is adaptable for use in local building codes. Regulation of New Land Uses Regulation of new land uses is a preventive measure. As noted above, there is a minimal potenti.al to reduce national flood losses by eliminating nonconforming existing uses'on a voluntary or ad hoc local basis. The greatest potential to reduce flood losses is a regulatory Policy that emphasizes the prevention or limitation of increases in future floodplain occupance. Flood.proofing new structures (safe construction practices) is also a preventive measure. It is applicable to desired uses of a floodplain. The regulations regarding such flood proofing can be incorporated into zoninge subdivision, or build-. ing requirements. An analysis of the feasibility of flood proofing a new small commercial structure showed it to be economically justi- 1Office of the Chief of Engineers, Flood--!Proofing Regula- tions (Washington, D. C.: June 1972). -31- fied, although it increased the building costs from 6 to 16 per- cent. Economic justification was evident when the annual bene- fits were compared with annual costs either in terms of reduced flood losses or reduced flood insurance premiums. The benefit/ cost ratios calculated for flood proofing alternatives that were consistent with NFIP regulations ranged from 2.5 to 6.0 when the reduced flood insurance costs were compared to the cost of flood proofing and from 1.6 to 3.5 when the reduction in flood,losses was compared to the costs of flood proofing. History and Evaluation of Floodplain Regulations The initially dominant approach to floodplain management for urban areas was the construction of corrective flood con- trol works.2 It was believed that such structural efforts would reduce the nation's flood losses. Experience showed that flood losses continued to increase, albeit at a reduced rate, when the floodplain management program consisted.primarily of flood control structures.3 In 1953, James E. Goddard of the. Tennessee Valley Authority recognized this and organized a Local Flood Rela- tions Branch. A cooperative program was initiated with State and local governments to regulate land use and construction prac- tices in local floodplains. In 1958, Francis C. Murphy evaluated the status of floodplain regulations in the United States. 4 Murphy concluded that an approach restricted to the imposition of Fede- 1Sheaffer & Roland, Inc., Feasibility, p. 2. 2 Flood Control Act of 19361 49 Stat. 1570, 22 June 1936. 3A.Unified Program for Managing Flood Losses, House Docu- ment . 465; 89th Congress, 2d session (1966). 4Francis C. Murphy, Regulating Development, pp. 163-4. -3P 2 - ral regulations would not succeed and would in fact be counter- productive. In his judgment, technical assistance provided by the Federal government,including the funding of local planning efforts, would engender the kind of-local response necessary to secure their active participation. Congress demonstrated its appreciation of the need to manage floodplains by authorizing the Corps to conduct floodplain in- formation studies. 1 Floodplain information reports prepared were to engender public awareness of the flood hazards and to alert the occupants to the availability of a range of potential floodplain management measures. Another major departure from the historical approach that had so dominated floodplain management was introduced in 1968. Passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (PL 90-448) created a flood insurance program that was linked to floodplain regulations. This created a national program to which State and local floodplain regulations could be related. By January 1972, 972 communities out of some 20,000 iden@ tified flood-prone communities had adopted some type of flood- plain regulation and were eligible for flood insurance. 2 How- .ever, in 1972, catastrophic flooding resulted in annual damages of $4,889 million, and disaster relief payments of $591 million ($760 million in 1975 prices) 3 These spiraling losses helped to stimulate enactment of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.4 Under this new legislation, communities upon receipt 1 .Flood Control Act, sec. 206, 74 Stat. 500 (14 July 1960). 2Federal Insurance Administration. 3U. S. Weather Bureau, Atlas. 4PL 93-234 (1973) -33- of floodplain information,adopted regulations. By December 31, 1978, 16,192 communities-had agreed to enact some floodplain regulations. 1 Other Federal legislation began to reverse the bias toward structural approaches. Section 73 of the Water Resources Deve- lopment Act of 1974 (PL 93-251 of 1974) requires all Federal agen- cies to give equal consideration to nonstructural approaches in any request for flood control expenditure. 2 It also permits an 80 percent Federal investment in nonstructural measures. 3 Other Federal authorities, such as Corps of Engineers regulation ER-1120-2-117 and Principles and Standards for Plan- ning Water and Related Land Resources, demand equal and unpre- 4 judiced evaluation of nonstructural alternatives. The latter requires evaluation of the effect of Federal actions on national economic efficiency and environmental quality. Under the broad authority of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), comprehensive planning (Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954), urban renewal (now defunct), community development (Section 101 of the Housing and Community Deve 'lopment Act of 1974), and disaster assistance programs administered by FDAA have been structured to incorporate comprehensive floodplain management measures in their activities. In some of these programs, emphasis is focused on the enactment of safe land 5 use and construction regulations. Executive Orders No. 11988 1Federal Insurance Administration. 2Water Resources Development Act, 88 Stat. 12, 14 (7 March 1974). 3 Small Watershed Program authorized by the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954. PL 83-566 (1954). 4Corps, "Investigation" and 38 FR 24778 et seq. (10 September 1973), respectively. 5 Disaster Relief Act of 1974, PL 93-288, Section 406. -34- and 11290 discourage and set conditions and requirements for evaluating potential development in floodplains and wetlands areas. The President, as part of his National Water Policy Revision, issued a memorandum to the Secretaries of the Army, Commerce, HUD, and Interior on July 12, 1978 that called for emphasis on nonstruc- tural flood protection methods. He directed them to utilize existing programs to encourage the use of nonstructural flood- plain management practices. Evolution of State and Local Floodplain Regulations In 1958, a national assessment of floodplain regulations showed that only 7 State and 35 local governments had acted to regulate their floodplains. 2 Such ordinances as existed were usually ineffectual or irrelevant. Ninety-eight percent of the land zoned as floodplain was completely undeveloped; the attempt to regulate development in areas actually experiencing development was found to be half-hearted. Areas that had been zoned as flood hazard areas were found to be consistently up- zoned for more intensive development following construction of levees. Subdivision regulations were generally referenced to 15 to 35 year design floods. Building codes did not deal with the flood hazard. Only spotty success was recorded in urban renewal and acquisition of floodplain land, and only then through the infusion of Federal monies. This poor record was largely attributable to the fact that local regulations were not inte- grated into a comprehensive program of flood damage reduction applying appropriate techniques to specific problems. 11'Floodplain Management" and "Protection of Wetlands" (24 May 1977), respectively. 2Murphy, Regulating Development. -35- A Water Resources Council survey was conducted in 1970-71 to establish the extent to which the various states had pro- gressed in enacting enabling floodplain regulation legislation. 1 Specific reference to flood hazards appeared in the statutes of 27 states with respect to zoning, 9 states with res pect to sub- divisions, and 15 states with respect to other aspects of the police power. This evaluation assessed the nacmitude of local regulatory efforts. Using September 196.9 as the survey time, 14, found that the zoning of riverine flood hazard areas was in effect in 40 states, 183 municipalities, and 71 counties. subdivision regulations were identified in 167 municipalities and 27 counties, It was observed that specific enabling legislation with reference to flood hazards was not necessary for communities to act, Where needs were perceived, floodplain regulations were implemented under the "general welfare" clauses of the statutes. A study of 180 municipalities and 77 counties as a sample was undertaken in 1972 to estimate the extent "of floodplain regu- lations. 2 Of the municipalities responding, 69 percent rep orted they had enacted floo(lplain regulations. With respect to the counties, 73 percent of those responding reported regulations. The majority of these regulations, 59 percent, had been enacted, after 1960. By 1974, State enabling legislation was broadened considera- bly. Specific authorization to regulate against flood hazards was present in 46 states with respect to zoning, 42 states with Jon A. Kusler and Douglas A. Yanagen, et al., Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, vols. 1 and 2 (Washinaton: Water Resources Council, 1970-71) 2Jon A. Kusler and T. M. Lee, "Regulations for Floodplains,' Planning Advisory Service, Report No. @77 (Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1972). -36- respect to subdivisionsr and 12 states with respect to building codes. Lhus, municipalities and counties have been delegated broad powers to regulate floodplains. The exercise of these powers by communities is both widespread and varied. A 1975 survey of 100 local governrents reputed to have ef- fective floodplain regulation programs (70 municipalities, 29 counties, and 1 council of governments) showed that 37 percent prohibited development from at least part of the floodplain, anc3 that 16 percent forbade residential use of at least part of the floodplain. 2 The availability of better information about the flood hazard made possible an enactment of nultiple zone ordi- nances in 50 percent of the sample communities. In multiple zone communities, floodways were distinguished from flood fringes and in 7 communities the floodplain outside the 100-year boundary was regulated. Refinement of regulatory approaches led to widespread regu- lation of activities other than construction of private buildings. Landf ills were regulated in 65 percent of the sample , storage of dangerous materials is regulated in 67 percent of the sample.. and the siting of various public facilitieswas controlled in as many as 47 percent of the sample communities. Lhis study clearly showed that precedents for floodplain regulation do exist, and in fact they are virtually universal. The wide variety of regula- tions documented reflect the broad range of actions that are po s- sible within the law to deal with specific needs. Kusler and Associates, Statutory Land Use Control Enabling C Authority in the Fifty States 1,_qashington; Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1975). 2Sheaffer & Roland, Inc., Mitigation, Tables 19 and 21. 3Ibid., p. 109. 4Ibid.r pp. 116-121. -37- The regulation of floodplAin land uses and construction practices is becoming widespread.. As of Decenber 31, l9781 there were 2,994 comr-unities participating in the Regular Pro- gram of the National Flood Insurance Program, In addition, 1.3,198 communities were participating in the NFIP Linergency Pro- gram. Floodplain regulations are most effectively administered, as part of an overall program for community nanagement of land use and construction. Thereforer such regulations can be best, implemented at the local level. The particular set of regulations adopted by a community reflects its unique perception of an equi- librium between special.-interests and the general welfare, Need for the Research Rapid expansion of floodplain regulatory activity has led to varied speculation concerning economic, social, and environ- mental effects of such regulation. Widespread comx.,.unity parti- cipation in the 14FIP suggests that floodplain regulations a6drest perceived needs. on the other hand, some communities have chal-@ lenged the desirability of floodplain regulation, These corti- munities have contended that the local costs of complying with floodplain regulations exceed the flood losses prevented. In addition, such regulations are alleged to produce adverse econo- mic effects at the local level, e.g., reduced property values, loss of potential economic growth, and increased costs of con- struction to comply with standards. with respect to individuals, there are alleged losses in anticipated home equity, stifling of private initiative, shift of economic burdens onto lower in- come groups and diminished regard for government. Vigorous objections by some interests against floodplain, regulations suggest there may be some adverse effects. To assess _38- the validity of the premise that community floodplain regulations produce net economic, social, and environmental benefits, empiri- cal data on the effects of. floodplain regulations were needed. This research effort has gathered such empirical data. The study evaluates public and private benefits and costs of flood- plain regulations over the short (1980) and intermediate (1990) term, at both the local and national level. An assessment of the economic, social, and envir onmental effects of floodplain regulation was derived from the empirical evidence gathered by this effort. Chapter III generally describes the research approach which is referenced in Appendix B. The body of knowledge regarding the effects of land use regulation in general and floodplain regu- lation in particular is reviewed., A list of potential economic, social, and environmental effects gleaned from Congressional hearings, expert opinions, judicial decisions, and literature per- taining to floodplain management is presented. A screening of these potential effects eliminated some from further analysis. Case study areas were selected to test the remaining effects. Projection procedures to forecast future development under dif- ferent regulatory scenarios are described. Finally, a method for aggregating and synthesizing the findings is explained. Chapter IV presents the case study findings. First, the current occupance characteristics--housingp p opulation, and land use--are pr esented for the 100-year floodpl ain and nonhazard area portions of the study areas. Economic and social characteristics of the population along with housing characteristics and environ- mental characteristics are analyzed. Finally, flood loss esti- mates are made for the various scenarios and an assessment of the economic effects of existing regulations is presented. -39- Chapter V provides an assessment of the effects of floodplain regulations. This is done for the three scenarios for the years 1980 and 1990. Economic, social, and environmental effects are evaluated by comparing the various scenarios and evaluating the differences between them. A national urban perspective is then formulated and findings presented. -40- CHAPTER. III THE RESEARCH APPROACH This investigation was undertaken to identify and measure the economic, social and environmental effects of floodplain regulations. The evaluation of the effects is based chiefly on empirical data collected from a number of selected case study areas. A first ste p in the investigation was to identify poten- tial effects. Thes.e potential effects were gleaned from the floodplain management and land use regulation literature. In addition, congressional hearing reports relating floodplain regulations were evaluated to identify effects. The effects gleaned from the literature were augmented and corroborated by eliciting viewpoints from-persons with recog- nized expertise in floodplain management. An assessment of the judicial recognition of the effects of floodplain regulations was undertaken. This was done by analyzing selected court de- cisions involving floodplain issues. The combined results obtained from these four sources-- congressional hearings, expert opinion, court decisions, and literature--identified the range of potential effects considered in this study. These effects were synthesized and organized under the general headings of economic, social, and environmental effects. It is significant to note that although these three classifications have significance in the floodplain management field, effects of regulations were not perceived within this framework. A screening of the potential effects was undertaken. Figure 1 (see page 4) presents the screening process used to arrive at the potential effects that could be considered in the case study areas. -41- The primary effects Qf regulations occur in the future. There are two basic ways to evaluate these effects. One is an historical approach which assesses changes over time which can be related directly to floodplain regulations. The historical approach was rejected because of the relative short period of time that regulations have been in force and the difficulty.of assessing how effective the regulations were administered. The other approach is to project future conditions under different floodplain regulatory scenarios and evaluate differences. This approach was selected for the research. The base year for these projections was 1975, and the target years for evaluation were 1980 and 1990. The conditions projected assumed that the regulations were imposed only in the 100-year floodplain. In the report, the use of the term floodplain or hazard area refers to the regulated area. While the natural or topographic floodplain extends be- yond this boundary, this definition will be used for the sake of simplicity. Where other parts of the floodplain are treated, special reference will be made. The effects of floodplain regulations were evaluated in a straightforward manner. To illustrate, one effect of a flood event is losses to structures and contents located on the flood- plains. If floodplain regulations reduce the number of struc- tures on the floodplain there is a related reduction in flood loss potential. This reduction in the flood loss potential is taken to be an effect of floodplain regulations. In evalua- ting effects, consideration was given to the total community and the economic region in which the floodplain was located.when deemed necessary. Floodplain regulations are intended to affect future land uses and development patterns.. Thus, it is necessary.to fore- -42- cast future flQodplain occup4nce under different regulatory sce- narios to evaluate the effects, A projection of future flood- plain occupance with no regulations was compared with projections of occupance under two degrees of floodplain regulations. One set,of regulations evaluated in this manner was analagous to the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program as currently administered by the Federal Insurance Administration. The other set of regulations is more stringent. It repre- .sents a program that will prohibit all new development and sub- stantial improvements in the hazard area and gradually corrects existing land use problems in the floodplain. For convenience, these three sets of conditions are referred to as Scenario I (no regulations), Scenario II (moderate regulations), and Sce- nario III (stringent regulations). Since the primary intent of the study is to examine the economic, social and environmental effects of floodplain regulation, every effort was made to hold other conditions constant in all three scenarios. In addition, it was assumed that the floodplain regulations would be properly administered. This assumption was made to factor out of the research the effects of amendments and variances generally as- sociated with the administration of land use regulations. This was done to preserve the differences between scenarios., Projections of future conditions in the case study areas were based on available forecasts of.population distributions and/or land uses. When field observations suggested that the available forecasts were not realistic, the forecasts were ad- justed to be made compatible with either past trends or current development patterns. In a few cases, the analysis of the ef- fects of regulations was influenced by conditions that have the potential to alter significantly the existing occupance and phy- sical expanse of the hazard area. In so doing they have the 1National Flood Insurance Program Rules and Regulations, Federal Register, Part 11 (26 October 1976), 41 F.R. 46962-46992. -43- potential to overshadow and alter the economic, social and en- vironmental effects of floodplain regulations. These conditions include: 1) the effects of,a major proposed flood control struc- ture; 2) the effects of a planned program of relocation and floodplain acquisition; or 3) the effects of a flood event greater than the 100- year flood (sometimes referred to as a.catastrophic flood). When such conditions were identified in the field investi- gations, an effort was made to account for their effects. The forecasts of population were then coverted into housing units and commercial and industrial activities. These uses were dis- tributed within the case study areas based on land conditions and fl oodplain regulation scenarios. By combining this in- formation with flooding characteristics, the effects of regula- tions can be estimated. identification of Potential Effects An extensive search of Congressional hearings, expert opinion, judicial recognition of floodplain regulations, and literature pertaining to floodplain management was conducted to identify potential economic, social, and environmental effects of flood- plain regulations. Summaries of the searches follow. Poten- tial effects as gleaned from these sources are presented in Table 4. Congressional Hearings .The effects'of floodplain regulations reported here were expressed by those who testified in the Congressional hearings. They are similar to those identified in the literature survey -44- EZ F hes 1. 1 1. n 3 "Z "0 0 "0 Olt 1. 1 @ @ . 0 n t 5@12 A @A 0 0 o 1. 114 1- , i i - 1. 2 F tlj Z F. I F n, No .11 1-2 a 14 I n I . . I . PTJ 0. 1 1 o 1. "0 tv 0 LITE 0 "0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXPE OPIN JUDI Ln 0 0 0000 0 0 w 0 Oh 0 0 0 0 40 0 REC 0 so 0 00 0 0 0 0" 0 0 HEA 0 0 0 0 LEGI OBJI H t74 0 0 1 .4 o, ........ F.; 2 MEER n 12,- kt-- 3 0 1 to H. I Il 1 11 oo I.* A 2 0. in Z A A C: SRI I I 51* 1. t n c 0 tz la@ IT; n I ol I Z HE - tr HEt" A o Ef) 7 4 _o@ I 9 2 0 tT I Z z En 1@ u presented later, The magnitude of the effects in the hearings was presented in a more dramatic manner. Testimony was presented that suggested that it was not pos- sible to correct the unwise development that already exists in floodplains. The Mayor of Cape Girardeau, Missouri contended that the intent of the substantial improvement clause, a cor- rective element of floodplain.regulations, was easily evaded. 1 Economic effects were perceived by private property owners, financial institutions, developers, and local government offi- cials who testified. It was claimed that there will be a re- duction in property value when floodplain regulations prohibit certain development in floodways. 2 Others stated that property located in identified floodways is marketable. This condition was perceived to reduce anticipated profits, and to reduce real estate tax assessments. 3 Financial institutions,perceived numerous adverse impacts from floodplain regulations. Some contended that restrictions governing substantial improvement of houses could render existing homes unmarketable and could act as a disincentive to private Howard C. Tooke, Mayor of Cape Girardeau, MO, cited in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Deve- lopment of the House Banking, Currency, and Housing Committee on H.R. 1677, H.R. 2459, and H.R. 3203, 94th Congress, lst. sess. (1975),at p. 595-597. 2 Joe A. Hubenak, Representative from Texas, 'cited in Public Hearings on Amendments to Floodplain Management Regulations, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration (New Orleans, LA: 1975), at p. 18; John P. Gale, Jr., Brazoria County, TX Commissioners, cited in*Amendment Hear- ings, at P. 53; and Harley.W. Snyder, on-behalf of -National As- sociation of Realtors, cited in House Hearings, at p. 783. 3D. Gerald Bing, General Engineering Contractor, cited in House Hearings, at p. 924. -46- investment in neighborhood rehabilitation'.. In a similar vein, it was suggested that regulations would constitute a disincen- tive to maintain property value and could have a deleterious effect on the nation's housing stock in older communities. 2 Testimony was presented suggesting that-the cost of elevating a house would be inflationary, have an adverse impact on housing succession, and could prevent.,lower i*ncome groups from pur- chasing existing homes, since "trading up" could be more re- str ained.3 Several testifiers speculated that increased construction costs could result from floodplain regulations. Estimates of the speculated costs varied from region to region. In Savannah, Georgia, estimates presented ranged from $4,000 to $15,000 per lot to elevate a home 3 to 8 feet.4 On the other hand, estimates of $600 to $1,000 for increased site development costs for 6,000 square feet lots in Hampton, Virginia were presented. 5 The range of speculation was broadened by an estimate of $35,000 to elevate and flood proof a small fast-food restaurant in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.6 -Robert M. Shofstahl, on behalf of the U. S. League of Savings Associations,cited in House Hearingst P_ 780. 2Ibid. 3 Harrison W. Fox, National League of Insured Savings Assoc- iations,,cited in Hearings before the Subcommittee on HousiE2 and Urban Affairs of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, on S. 269, S. 390, S. 1495, S. 1840, and S. 1899.,,93rd Congress, lst sess. (June 1973), at p. 211. 14- John Rouslakis, Mayor of Savannah, GA, cited in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, on S. 1495 and H.R. 8449, 93rd*Congress, Ist sess. (October 1973),at p. 50. 5Tom Schreck cit ed in House Hearings,at p. 240. 6 Thomas Halsouser, Engineer, Cape Girardeau, (MO) cited in House Hearings,at pp. 604-5. -47- Information presented by the Federal Insurance Administra- tion suggested that flood proofing against sheet flow adds 1 to 2 percent to the cost of a building, and that flood proofing against other floods adds 5 to 10 percent. I The National As- sociation of Realtors testified that the increase in construc- tion1costs for flood proofi ng would be insignificant. 2 A spokes- man for the U. S. League of Savings Associations from New Orleans juxtaposed the high annual costs of flood insurance for structures at low elevations against the additional costs of elevating struc- tures coupled with reduced flood insurance premiums; he concluded that the costs of elevating were paid for in a relatively short time by reduced flood insurance costs. 3 Local government officials alleged that they could incur property tax revenue losses if assessments of property values were reduced because of floodplain regulations. 4 They also perceived a potential for the loss of new industrybecause of the need to adhere to floodplain regulations. 5 The anticipated cost to administer and implement floodplain regulations was sug- gested as a potential problem. 6 In areas where economic re- li. Robert Hunter, Acting Federal Insurance Administrator, cited in House Hearings, at p. 98. 2Snvder, House Hearingsf at p. 783. 3Shofstahl, House Hearings, at p. 780. 4Bill Frizzell, Mayor of Lake Jackson, TX, at p. 90, L. H. Jones, Brozosport, TX Chamber of Commerce, at p. 58, and B. H. Howard, Mayor of Richmond, TX, at p. 84, cited in Amendment Hearings; John P. Sammon, on behalf of the National Association of Realtors, at p. 241 and Nancy S. Phillipi, Illinois Depart- ment of Local Government Affairs,, at p. 317, cited in June Senate Hearings; Rousakis, October Senate Hearings, at p. 50; and Terry L. Flowers, on behalf of the California Mortgage Bankers Associa- tion, cited in House Hearings, at p. 72. C. W. Reynolds, Mayor of Oyster Creek, TX, cited in Amend- ment Hearings, at p. 121. 6Monica Florian, cited in House Hearings, at p. 35. -43- development is being pursued such as in flood-prone Appalachia, it was suggested that floodplain regulations could hinder redeve- lopment and perpetuate economic difficulties. It should be noted that the economic allegations made against floodplain regulations were not documented with empirical data. Nevertheless, the allegations resulted from genuinely perceived economic effects. In addition, the descriptions of potential effects did not take into account cost savings resulting from reduced flood insurance rates, reduced average annual flood damages, and other measurable benefits from floodplain regulations. The most widely criticized aspect of the cost of floodplain regulations is that the effects fall primarily on the low in- come, elderly, minority, and young family segments of the popu- lation. 2 The cost of elevating new homes (varying from $699 to $1,500 per dwelling) was assumed to dissuade part of the population from entering the housing market, thus denying that group access to decent housing and the accumulation of wealth 3 through the appreciation of real property. In the same vein, several observers feared the further deterioration of central city neighborhoods because substantial improvements would ren- der the entire structure vulnerable to actuarial rates. 4 Thus, the feeling was voiced that the burden of the program falls most .inexorably on those with the least housing opportunity and the greatest need. 1Leonard A. Shabman, ibid., p. 913. 2Fox., at p. 211, Richard P. Guidry, Representative from Louisiana at P. 328, and Luke A. Petrovich, Plaquemines Parish Commission Council, at p. 340, cited in June Senate Hearings, and Shofstahl, at p. 780, and Gene Judd, Associate Director, California Association of Realtors, at p. 156, and Hannaford, at p. 3, House Hearings. 3Jones, at p. 58, and Frizzell at p. 90, cited in Amendment Hearings; and Schreck, House Hearings, p. 248. 4Shofstahl, Hous e Hearings, p. 780. -49- 2@ perceived economic effect of floodplain regulations was the allegation that they take property value without due compen- sation. Thus, regulations were reported to be confiscatory, i.e., tantamount to the condemnation of land. The assumed im- pediments to sale and the assumed diminution of property value were viewed together as a taking without due compensation. A surmised effect was that floodplain regulations discriminate against small municipalities, which cannot afford flood control works. Thus, they must accept a broad flood hazard area delinea- tion, and are compelled to adopt regulations simply to avoid the sanction imposed as a result of nonparticipation. 1 Discussion of potential environmental effects of floodplain regulations was limited. Environmental interests applauded floodplain regulations. Testimony in the Congressional hearings is briefly summarized by the following items expressing generally the perceived effects of floodplain regulations. 1) loss of floodplain property value; 2) loss of real estate tax base and revenue to the com- munity; 3) increased costs of construction in the floodplain, interpreted as increased building costs; 4) loss of property equity through implementation of the "substantial improvement" regulations; 5) floodplain regulations are not economically feasible; and their benefits do not exceed costs; and 6) the cost of floodplain regulations is borne by the poor, the elderly, minority groups, and young fam- ilies, implying a discriminatory element in the regu- lations. 1Shofstahl, House He arings, at P. 780. -50- Expert Opinion A number of nationally recognized floodplain managers and authorities and other interest groups involved in floodplain is- sues were contacted to elicit their viewpoints regarding the economic, social, and environmental effects of floodplain regu- lations. The individuals from whom opinions were elicited (see Table 5) represent a range of expertise that includes specific community knowledge and a broad national overview of flood prob- lems and floodplain management issues. Their varied opinions, therefore, not only reflect differences in perception but at times acknowledge a range of experiences in different communi- ties. (One authority, for example, predicted that the effects of regulations would differ through time.) Several individuals indicated that there may be an impact on land use and development patterns. It was noted that de- velopment of floodways is being reduced and that a policy of acquiring open land is being strengthened. It was also hypo- thesized that development diverted from the hazard area would concentrate at the edges of the 100-year floodplain. At least one authority stressed that the catastrophic potential of flooding could be increased by a concentration of development at the edge of the 100-year floodplain. The majority of the expected effects were defined in socio- economic terms, as monetary costs that would shift the burden of cost or the pattern of home-ownership. For example, some of the people interviewed believed that regulations (especially for flood proofing) and insurance requirements would impose extra costs that would force a considerable proportion of home- owners out of a particular market. Others expressed the views that floodplains are often inhabited by a disproportionate share.of lower income groups, many of whom are not property -51- Table 5: Selected Contacts for Expert Opinion Interviews Contacts Affiliation Authorities Charles R. Ford Department of the Army Robert M. Gidez Jack Faucett & Associates James E. Goddard Floodplain Management Consultant Frank Gregg New Enaland River Basins Commission George Griebenow Upper Mississippi Basin Commission L. Douglas Janes Utah State University D. Earle Jones Departrent of Housing & Urban Development, Washington, D. C. Howard Kunreuther University of Pennsylvania Glen R. Wall Tennessee Valley Authority Gilbert F. White University of Colorado State Officials Jack Pardee California French Wetmore Illinois James M. Wright Minnesota Dirk Hoffman New Jersey John Carling Pennsylvania Tom Muellner Wisconsin Professional Interest Groups Environmental Defense Fund League of Women Voters of the U.S. National Association of Homebuilders National Association of Realtors National Wildlife Federation Sierra Club Disaster Relief Organizations Dan Marvin Small Business Administration Evelyn Sherry Small Business Administration Robert Blair Federal Disaster Assistance Adminis- tration Chesney Moran Federal Disaster Assistance Adminis- tration Ray Popkin Red Cross, Disaster Services C. Nelson Hastetter Mennonite Church -52- owners, Therefore, it was expected that the burden of compli- ance would fall disproportionately on.a group which,cannot af- ford the marginal cost of flood protection structures. The reverse implication of this shift of burden was also hypothe- sited: increased awareness of the nature of flood disasters engenderad by regulations and insurance has made the general public less inclined to repeatedly indemnify inhabitants of hazard areas. At least one authority, however, felt that floodplain regulations would not affect the distribution of the burden of flood losses. No agreement was evident as to whether or not changes in development patterns would necessi- tate increased cost for changes in urban infrastructure. From an environmental perspective, regulations were deemed most effective in the preservation of currently undeveloped floodplains. Benefits associated with the preservation of these open spaces were thoug ht to include recreation, groundwater recharge, and preservation of natural wildlife areas. Insufficient empirical evidence was available for authori- ties to evaluate definitively the potential effects of flood- plain regulations on the need for disaster relief. No authori- ty could empirically connect floodplain regulations with changes in disaster expenditure levels although there was speculation that such a relationship exists. The results of this effort to survey floodplain managers and authorities and other interest groups can be summarized. The effects perceived include: 1) changes in land use and development patterns on,the 100-year floodplain and adjacent area; 2) increased housing costs which could force a considerable proportion of homeowners out of particular markets; -53- 31 preservation of currently undeveloped floodplains which provide recreation, groundwater recharge, and natural wildlife benefits; and 4) reduced demand for disaster relief. The identified effects from these expert opinions both overlapped and supplemented the.effects identified in the Congressional hearings. Judicial- Recognition In their interpretation of floodplain and environmental regulations, Federal and State courts have addressed many of the items noted in the course of the Congressional hearings and highlighted by experts. Floodplain regulations refer to any array of techniques designed to keep people away from flood- waters in contrast to structural measures (dams, dikes, levees, seawalls, and channel improvements) designed to-keep floodwaters away from people.. Floodplain regulation techniques include: comprehensive planning; building codes and building permits;* floodplain zoning, subdivision regulations; site plan review; water supply, sewerage, drainage and erosion control regulations; utility,location regulations, tidal and fresh water wetlands: regulations; environmental regulations, set-back lines; acqui- sition and relocation. A basic tension exists between the rights of the private property owner to usetheir property unencumbered by regula- tion; and the responsibility of all levels of government for the health, safety,and well-being of their citizens. Floodplain. regulations are widely accepted as an appropriate exercise of the police power. Regulations are presumed to be valid if they: 1) conform to and do not exceed the authority granted in enabling statutes; -54- 2), adhere to the doctrine of reasonableness, i.e.,,, do not unreasonably deprive property owners of all economic benefits; and 3) forbid arbitrary or discriminatory treatment, i.e., require equal treatment for similarly situated properties. Appendix A traces some of the recent trends in judicial decisions relating to floodplain regulations. An effort was made to address,as specifically as possible, the concerns raised in the Congressional hearings and/or by the expert opinions. In addit:ion,, court interpretations of the limits of regu- lations focused on the following items: 1) protection of lives and property, including the urban infrastructure; 2) preclusion of need for public*expenditure for pro- tective works and disaster relief; 3) preservation of groun -dwater recharge area; and, 4) maintenance of environmental quality: ecosystems, natural resources, habitat, fish, and the production of nutrient use. A clear trend in judicial interpretation of regulations. designed to protect health, safety, and welfare of the public is to uphold such regulations. Literature Search A search of literature pertaining to floodplain management was conducted to identify potential effects of floodplain regu- lations. A recent example of an effort to identify specific effects of floodplain regulations is Warnick's paper on land values on or near regulated floodplains in Oregon. In his 1Warnick, Growth Rates. -55- review of the literature, he argues that previous attempts to deal with the general topic of land values and flood hazards were directed primarily at estimating land value changes re- sulting directly from flood control measures. Clarenbach, Knetsch, and Struyk were concerned with the imDact of flood con- trol on agricultural lands and land values. 1 Greenberg et al. examined methods for isolating the effects of flood protection on urban floodplains, while Boyet et al. addressed the impact of flooding itself on land values. Shadman and Damianos took a different approach in the sense that they attempted to estimate the impact of structural and nonstructural flood hazard reduction alternatives on the sales prices of residential land.3 Unfortunately, as Warnick points out, these authors were not able to distinguish the effects of a specific public policy such as flood hazard regulation from the effects of floods and flood hazard s themselves. Al- iF. Clarenbach, Reliability of.Estimates of Agricultural Damage from Floods, Task Force Report on Water Resources and Power, vol. III (Commission on organization of the Executive Branch of Government, 1954), pp. 1277-98; J. L. Knetsch, "The Influence of Reservoir Projects on Land Value," Journal of Farm Economics (1964); and R. S. Struyk, Agricultural Flood Control Benefits and Land Values (Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources, 1971). 2 E. Greenberg et al., Analysis of Theories and Methods for Estimating Benefits of Protecting Urban Floodplains (St. Louis: Institute for Urban and Regional Studies, Washington University, 1974);and W. Boyet et al., The Impact of Flooding Upon Land Values in the Big River Basin (Mississippi State University, Water Resources Research Institute, 1976). 3L. A. Shadman and D. Damianos, Land Prices in Flood Hazard Areas: Applying Methods of Land Value Analysis, Bulletin 95 (Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia Water Resources Center, 1976). -56- though.Warnick recognizes the difficulty in isolating the impacts of specific policy, hi's analysis also falls somewhat short of the mark. As he admits: This study is not an attempt to isolate the effects of floodplain regulations on land value in terms of a specific dollar value per acre figure. Rather it is a trend analysis designed to compare the relative value appreciation rates of regulated and unregulated parcels with respect to the implementation of floodplain regulation on selected sites.1 This work demonstrates the difficulty of using a trend analysis to evaluate the effects of floodplain regulations. Since Warnick found only a slowing of the increase in land values in flood hazard areas, he could only conclude that the adverse effects of regulation, if any, were small relative to otherforces op- erating on land values.. In contrast to these efforts to isolate specific effects, another body of literature was concerned with the identification of a more comprehensive list of potential effects. White and several of his colleagues have outlined a comprehensive list of potential economic effects of floodplain regulation,'ranging from benefits of open land and cutbacks in catastrophic potential to decreased dependency on structural works and a reduction in average annual damages.2 He offer s no empirical estimate of the size of these components,-but.he does argue that the need forsuch estimates is paramount. In conjunction with his flood hazard re- search assessment, he does estimate that the.resources needed to.pro- vide accurate estimates over the, following two years would be enormous. 1Warnick, pp. 4-5. 2Gilbert F. White, et al., Changes in Urban Occupance of Floodplains in the United States, Department of Geography Re- search Paper No. 57 (Chicago: University of Chicago, November 1958). -57- The literature on the effects of floodplain regulations was not prolific. Much had been written on regulations gene- rally and on the effects of adjustments to flood events. In- deed, the effects of regulations were rtost often presented in the context of mitigating or obviating the negative effects of flood episodes. 1 Such effects of regulations, therefore, are considered beneficial. The effects reported include: 1) reduction of population at rish., reduction in death and human suffering; 2) reduction of damages, property losses; 3) reduction in excavation, flood fighting, disaster relief, fire and police control efforts and their costs; 4) reduction in costs of adjustment, replacement, re- pair of infrastructure; .5) reduction of disruption of local government services; 6) reduction of interruption of business production of goods and services; and 7) reduction of transportation problems. Willis, in particular, has identified a comprehensive list of direct, indirect, and intangible costs associated with flooding which are broken down by sector: agricultural, business, organi- zation, personal, and public. She maintains that these costs are reduced through floodplain regulation, but introduces no quantitative methodology for supporting this hypothesis. This contention contrasts with the consensus of expert opinion which minimizes other than economic effects. W. G. Sutton, "The Use of Floodplains," Military Engineer Nov.-Dec. 1964, pp. 414-416; Tennessee Valley Authority, Oliver Springs Redevelopment Progr , Planning Report No. 70-100 (Knox- ville: 1968); J. D. Willis, Flood Insurance: Asset or Liability in Land Use Control, Emergency Planning Canada, Report 76-2 (Ottawa, Canada: April 1976); and Gilbert F. White et al., Flood Hazard' in the United States: A Research Assessment (Boulder: Institute for Behaviorial Sciences, University of Colorado, 1975). .-58- it should be noted that the effects described related to floodplain regulations and management techniques in general. In some cases, however, they specifically referred to NFIP regu- lations; and in most cases the controls described appear to re- semble NFIP regulations. Classification and Screening of Potential Effects The identified potenti al effects of floodplain regulations were initially tabulated (see Figure 1, page 4 ) as they were per- ceived in the four sources. These effects were then classified under the general headings of Economic Effects, Social Effects, and Environmental Effects. The next step in the process was to screen these and select those which possibly could be evaluated in the case study areas. Four assessments were made in the screening process (see Figure 2, page 21) . Potential effects were eliminated when it was determined that: 1) identified effects were not measurable; 2) data base needed for measurement was incomplete or nonexistent; 3) available data were too general for analysis of spe- cific effects; and 4) data requirements were too extensive for scope of study. Although data on flood losses generally were available, breakdowns into subcategories of land uses were not available. In these circumstances, assumptions as to the distribution of average annual losses were formulated and discussed with local and Federal (Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Ser- vice, FDAA) officials. Breakdowns for residential, commercial and industrial (combined) and public (plus institutional) sec- tors were carried throughout the study. Public facilities other than buildings were included in the latter category. -59- In some cases data were available at the national level but were not available for individual communities. In several in- stances, the national estimates were allocated uniformly to arrive at case study estimates. For example, average annual Red Cross costs were derived from naticnal data. When yearly Red Cross expenditures for flood relief in the 1970s are compared with yearly flood losses, expenditures for relief approximate 0.3 percent of estimated losses. Of these expenditures, approximately 60 percent are for "relief" (mass care; f6od, clothing, and shelter; medical and nursing) and 40 pcrcent for reimbursement of flood losses (building and repair; home furnishings; and occupa- tional equipment and supplies). Thus, it was assumed that, on the average, Red Cross relief costs wo-ld be 0.18 percent (60 percent of 0.3 percent) of the total projected average annual damages in each scenario. Similarly, average annual FDAA payments were derived from national data. Comparison of yearly FD;,A payments for assis- tance in flood disasters in 1973-1974 (S272.7 million) with na- tional yearly flood damages ($2,156.9 m..l-'.ion) for the same period reveals that FDAA flood disaster assistance payments approxi- mated 12 percent of estimated flood losses. FDAA authorities estimate that approximately 80 percent of the payments for assis- tance are for reimbursement of public damages and 20 percent for reimbursement of private (individual) dE.mages. Thus, it was assumed that 12 percent of average annu,-1 damages in a case study would be reimbursed by the FDAA, 9..6 pe-cent credited against public losses and 2.4 percent against p.--ivate losses. While population at-risk was care-4-ully quantified, data on deaths, injury and illness were not coi,,plete. moreover, they could not be annualized to conform to cither modes of analysis. On the other hand, these items were co@-related with the resi- -60- dential Population at risk, Thus, effects of regulations on protection of lives were evaluated in terms, of population at risk. At the time of the case studies, it was not possible,to quantify the environmental effects of regulations. Based on an assessment of environmental conditions in the case study areas, the effect of regulation and future development on such variables as water supply, water quality, ecosystem preservation, open space, recreation, and quality of life considerations could be discussed qualitatively. However, as comprehensive regional "208 plans" (EPA sponsored long range water quality management plans),.transportation plans, open space plans, and water supply plans with their accompanying environmental assessments and en- vironmental impact statements are completed, it will become more feasible to identify and quantify specific environmental values. Such a study is underway for the DuPage River in DuPage and Will Counties, Illinois. This study quantifies environmental values by drawing from the results of such plans which were available for northeastern Illinois. Methodology Willis, Mack, Baker and McPhee, and Litchfield have outlined approaches to be used in evaluating economic, social and environ-, 1 mental effects of floodplain regulations. Willis highlighted 1Willis, Insurance; Ruth P. Mack, "Crite ria for Evaluation of Social Impacts of Flood Management Alternatives" (1974); "Assessment of Flood Management Alternatives Against Social Per- formance Criteria" (1975)(New York: Institute of Public Adminis- tration for the New England River Basin Commission); E. J. Baker and J. G. McPhee, Land Use Management and Regulation in Hazardous Areas: A Research Assessment (Boulder: Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado, 1975); N. Litchfield, "What To Do With the Old Mint?" in Cost-Benefit Analysis in Urban Development (Berkeley: Real Estate Research Programs, Univer- sity of California, 1962). -61- the importance of distinguishing between national and local effects and of isolating the effects on various sectors of the community. Mack attempted to quantify the effects by focusing on*benefits and costs, in addition to impacts that can be measured easily in dollar terms. An attempt was made to combine or weight the importance of the different ),-.inds of effects. Mack's approach highlights the need for assigning relative importance to the various effects. Thus, its data demands make it difficult, if not impossible, to assign weights in more than one or two specific case studies. For this research effort, the approach of Litchfield seems more appropriate. Litchfield has used a straightforward approach. The costs and benefits of alter- native decisions are enumerated and classified for the decision makers. The supplying of weights to the alternative decisions is left to the decision makers. Mathematical Models Falling between the analysis and quantification of a speci- fic effect and the qualitative description of a comprehensive list of effects is a body of literature which includes formal mathematical models for estimating the effects of structural and nonstructural flood loss reduction measures. These efforts have been developed around simulation and mathematical programming techniques. 2 Mack, "Criteria" and "Assessment" and Litchfield, "Old Mint," pp. 6-7. 2 A useful comparison of these methods is contained in J. Sutton' W. Anderson, D. Carvey, B. Holmes, J. McDivitt and A. Miller, "Nonstructural Measures for Flood Damage Reduction," Working Paper No. 38 (Washington, D. C.: Natural Resource Econo- mics Division, Economic Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, July 1977). -62- The.mathematical progra=@ng technigues Are perhAps.the most inflexible of the proceduresf Although.with improved comPuter technology many realistic problems can be analyzed, Day and one of his recent students, Weisz, have developed and refined a programming model to allocate,specific land uses to specific areas of the floodplain. 1 .using a productivity index that con- siders the flood hazard'and the susceptibility of use to damage, the,model selects the combination of land use activities, site elevation techniques, and flood proofing'which maximizes the aggregate site rent, subject to predetermined land use goals, community growth expectations., and pre-project flood risk. North et al. tried-to extend the methodology to include multiple goals@, 2 weighting each component according to its importance. The one feature of these models which sets them apart from other approaches is that they do not ask the question: "What is the effect of a particular structural or nonstructural measure?" Rather, they turn the analysis around and determine the measure or combination of measures that maximize some objective., while this.may be an ideal way to develop floodplain management schemes, decisions are rarely made in such a comprehensive fashion. The developers of this methodology recognize this fact and attempt to approximate an incremental decision approach by carefully constructing constraints on changes in land use implied by institutional land uses which.do not respond to market forces, John C. Day, "A Recursive Programming Model for Nonstruc-' tural Flood Damage Control," Water Resource Research, Vol. 6, (October 1970) pp. 1262-71. R. N. Weisz, A Methodology for Planning Land Use and En- gineering Alternatives for Floodplain Management (Ph. D. thesist Tucson: University of Arizona, 1972). 2 R. M. North et al., The Highest and Best Uses of the Okla waha River Basin and Lake Rousseau for the Economy and the Environ- ment (Athens: Institute of Natural Resources, University of Georgia, 1976). -63- community development potential, and community goals. In some @nstances, these factors cAn be identified and in others they cannot. Rov.@ever, the problem of representing and measuring these constraints quantitatively is ever present and seriously limits the method's general applicability. Despite the ability of many high speed computers to solve large linear programming problems, data limitations confound the general use of these exacting inzather.-atical Toethods in floodplain management. Researchers are still limited by the accura cy with which the model's parameters can be estir.)ated, As an example, Sutton et al. reTrark: In facing the problems encountered by other re- searchers--eStiTnating econoT-,ic rent--Day called upon tax assessment-sales value data in his case study area. Although he realized that economic rent must reflect flood losses, he was unable to determine empirically that the actual real estate market for floodplain property recognized it. He thus approximated rent by deducting all ex- pected losses from estimated land market values, Data and information needs for these formal analyses are even more demanding than those used in analyzing one or two flood hazard mitigation measures in a less formal mathematical framework. one can seriously question whether the accuracy of the data warrants such sophisticated mathematical tech- niques. Simulation Models In constructing simulation models, as the name implies, re- searchers attempt to reproduce the essential characteristics of 1J. Sutton et al., "Nonstructural Measures," p. 31. -64- a socio-economic .9ystem in an experimental or laboratQry environ- ment so that the effects of an external st@mulus on the system can be studied systematically. Because of the large number of complex relationships in local or regional economies, simula- tion models designed to examine the effects of structural and nonstructural flood loss mitigation measures often rely on high speed computers to perform many.of the calculations. This com- Duterization requires that the essential relationships be modeled math ematically.. Because optimization is not inherently involved in the manipulation of the model, more complex relationships can be accommodated, thus enhancing the flexibility of the models. Once developed, the models can often be used over and over again to analyze a number of different policies. Although varying in the degree of mathematical sophistication, the work of Arvanitidis, Lind et al.; Kunreuther; and James re- flect the most recent attempts to simulate the effects of flood- plain management alternatives.1 To illustrate, the Arvanitidis, Lind et al. simulation model 1'...allows planners to consider a variety of floodplain manage- ment plans, quantify the benefits, and determine their sensiti- vity to various parameters, different assumptions, and alternative policy decisions."2 The essential components of the model in- N. W. Arvanitidis, R. C. Lind, et al., Preliminary Review and Analysis of Flood Control Project Evaluation Procedures (Ft. Belvoir, VA: Institute for Water Resources, Department of the ' Army, Corps of Engineers, 1970); N.. W. Arvanitidis et al., A Com- puter Simulation Model for Floodplain Development, Part I (Ft. Belvoir, VA: Institute for Water Resources, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 1972); H. Kunreuther et al., Limited Knowledge and Insurance Protection: Implications for Natural Hazard Policy (Washington, D.C.: NSF-RANN, 1977); L. D. James, A Time-Dependent Planning Process for Combining Structural Mea- sures, Land Use and Flood Proofing to Minimize the Economic Cost of Floods (Palo Alto: Stanford University, 1964); L. D. James, "Non-Structural Measures for Flood Control," Water Resources Research, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1965); L. D. James, "Economic Analysis of Alternative Flood Control Measures," Water Resources Research, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1967). 2J. Sutton et al., "Nonstructural Measures," p. 22. -65- clude the calculation of economic rents, flood damages, and land values; the allocation of land use; and the benefit evaluation. Estimates of the essential parameters of the model are often difficult to obtain, particularly the ones related to economic rents and land values. Because the developers of these models also recognized the importance of environmental amenities, social factors, and costs of site development, construction and commuting, the effective use of the model depends on the ability of a know- ledgeable planner to provide accurate input data (including gene- ral economic forecasts and the ultimate land use plans under al- ternative floodplain management schemes) and to interpret the out- put within the context of nonquantifiable socio-economic condi- tions. The models James applied sought to simulate optimality in real world nonlinear conditions and thereby avoid the linearity assumptions and requirements for unfamiliar data that make other models difficult to interpret. James did, however, recognize that an optimal plan for flood hazard mitigation could involve a combination of structural and nonstructural measures. James viewed flood damages as a cost which can be reduced through the application of a comprehensive flood control program. On balance, these types of models can be used to forecast the type of land use activity and other consequences which might take place under a set of structural measures used in conjunction with governmental land use and other nonstructural hazard miti- gation policies. They have failed to answer the question of what controls should be imposed. Although calculations are often facilitated through an interface with high speed digital computers, simulation models defined in their broadest sense need not be highly mathematical or completely quantifiable. The es- sential ingredients include an abstact model of an economy, com- bined with some way of tracing the effects of an external stimu- -66- lus on the structure of the system. The effects can be traced with the help of formal mathematical relationships or in a more qualitative way through an appeal to theory and the power of logical reasoning. Relevance to This Investigation This study examines the effects of floodplain regulations on a variety of economic, social and environmental conditions. Since many of the effects will be felt in the future, some form of simulation methodology must be appli ed. The diversity of each floodplain area suggests the need to be site specific in the re- search. Because only a limited number of alternative land use policies is being examined in this research, the need for a capa- city to conduct repeated experiments on the model is minimized. Because of data limitations, this effort seeks to quantify a small number of the selected effects rather than examine a comprehen- sive list of Dotential effects. Thus, the methodology developed for this study strives to be a balance between the more formal simulation approaches and the general conceptual frameworks fre- quently used to evaluate floodplain management problems. Research Framework An empirical, inductive approach was necessitated by the shortcomings of existing data on, and methods for evaluating, the effects of floodplain regulations. Perceived effects tended to be unsupported by empirical evidence. The case study approach was adopted to meet this situation. Development of empirical data from selected case studies was in- tended to provide a base of information regarding the occupance of urban floodplains. The case study approach allows the analysis -67- of effects to be site specific for a range of flood conditions, community sizes, and geographic.locations. Moreover, relation- ships of the effects of regulations can be analyzed. The, linkages among regulations, population, housing, economic deve- lopment potential, flood losses, and the flood hazard can be identified within the context of overall community.development. The following sections p27esent the considerations behind the selection of the sample of case studies and the mode of in- vestigation used in the case studies. Selection of Case Study Areas A large number of detailed field investigations was sche- duled to maximize the quantity of empirical data assembled. Data were gathered from 23 selected case study areas but data from only 21 were included in the evaluation tables. The data col- lected for San Diego County, CA were not of detail comparable to those of other.case studies and therefore were not included in the evaluation tables. Its regulatory policies, however, were included in the analysis along with the other case studies. The data for.the 71 municipalities in Bergen County, NJ were gathered after the initial analyses for the other case studies were com- pleted. The thrust of the Bergen County effort focused on the finan- cial implications of floodplain locations and regulations. These data are more detailed than those gathered in the other case studies and could not be synthesized readily into the analyses. The case study sites were selected to represent a range of geographic, flood, and economic conditions. The physical and regulatory.characteristics represented in communities selected for case study investigation are summarized by Housing and Urban Development regions in Table 1. The sample is skewed in the direction of larger communities, in more urban, populous regions, where regional growth imperatives are great.- Ry choosing a large numbe .r Qf case studies, a broad range of community and flood conditions was represented. Thus the effects of regulations were viewed within a range of settings. All the case study areas selected are urbanized. The ra- tionale for this relates to the concentration of flood losses in urban centers. Goddard has shown that urban floodplains are limited to 0.56 percent of the nation's total area. The Water Resources Council estimates show that one-third of all flood losses are in urban areas. 1 Therefore, the potential for further development of the floodplains, and thus for in- creases in the exposure to flood risks, is greater in urban than rural areas. Finally, it is in the urban areas where floodplain regulations are more widespread'and-where their ef- fects would be the most discernible. -Figure shows the lo- cations of the case study communities. The case studies were limited to communities which are par- ticipating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and for which the 100-year flood is delineated. Further, there is an emphasis on communities which are participating in the Regular Program. This choice was made because flood hazard information is more detailed for Regular Program communities through their Flood Insurance Studies. Furthermore, it was assumed that communities with the most serious flood hazards are more likely to participate in the Regular Program at this time and would have floodplain regulatory experience. Overall, 9 out of the 10 HUD regions are represented by at least 2 case study areas. The only region not represented in the case studies is Region 10, comprising Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The urban flood losses in this region are relatively small compared to other regions. 1Goddard, Evaluation, p. 25 and Water Resources Council, Estimated Flood Damages, p. 2. -69- Figure 5 Location Map of Case Study Communities ONE.". 19 17 c@. ..2 . ..... 7`07 4 1@ 16 15 9. .5 00. 8 21* 14 20 3 22 13 2i 1. Cranston, RI 12. Orleans Parish, LA 2. Westerly, CT 13. Harris County, TX 3. Northampton, MA 14. Cape Girardeau, mo 4. Southampton, NY 15. Toledo, OH 5. Wayne Township, NJ 16. 'Palatine, IL *6. Bergen County, NJ 17. Prairie du Chien, WI 7. Jersey Shore, PA 18. Omaha, NE 8. Prince George's County, MD 19. Fargo, ND 9. Wheeling, Wv 20. Tulsa, OK 10. Savannah, GA 21. Arvada, CO 11. Sarasota County, FL 22. Scottsdale-, AZ *23. San Diego County, CA *Not included in all evaluations -70- Case Study 'Investigations During field investigation, study teams experienced in planning, engineering, resource management, survey research, public administration, geography, and economics visited the case study areas. The research teams gathered information on community goals; social, economic, and environmental character- istics; trends in development patterns; growth trends; land use patterns and pressures; the type and perception of the flood hazard; the extent and character of flood damages; the history of floodplain adjustment to flood damages; and the evolution of floodplain policies including attitudes toward structural flood control measures. The,information was gathered from census materials, planning documents, community files, newspapers, and various community reports. In additionassessments were made of past decisions, especially those related to land use. Interviews were held in each case study area with community informants and influentials including the mayor, city manager., tax assessor, planner, zoning administrator, building inspector, bankers, realtors, builders, floodplain occupants, newspaper editors, and representatives of social and environmental community grouipsl An lnit@al group of knowledgable community informants was contacted for their views on these issues and to identify persons who were influential in floodplain issues, The stan- dard initial panel of contacts is a feature of the Issue-Specific Reputational Method. 1 This method has proven useful in identi- fying a community's decision-making structure and inevaluating the relative significance of a particular issue (floodplain 1Terry N. Clark, Community Structure, pp. 471-473. -71- management) in the total scheme of communal issues. Overall, 481 persons were contacted and interviewed. Table 6 shows the number and type of contacts made. FIA regional staff and State coordinators were also used to identify key contacts for information and to provide background on issues. An important aspect of the field investigations was the com- pilation and validation of data regarding community growth charac- teristics. Central to the projection of alternative regulatory scenarios is the adoption of a workable set of base data and as- sumptions regarding a community's growth potential. Interviewing persons in the community gave insight into current trends which allowed either the acceptance or modification of locally generated forecasts, both as to magnitude and location. Projection Procedures The major effects of floodplain regulations occur in the future. Unfortunately, floodplain regulations have not been in widespread use for a sufficiently long time to allow reviewing a community's experience to gain a definitive assessment of the economic, social, and environmental effects of such regulations. Even in those communities that had some experienre with floodplain regulations, it still would have been necessary to compare effects of the regulations against what would have happened without the regulations, In order to perform with and without assessment it would have been necessary to compare a community with regulations to a comparable one without them, The paucity of past experience with floodplain regulations requires the formulation of projection procedures to simulate their economic, social, and environmental effects. To do so, an approach based on hypothetical alternative future scenarios was adopted. -72- Table 6: Contracts by Category for Case Study Communities Persons Contacted Q 41 It's 0 U U a C6 k C6 U a 0 0 U -1 UC6 N 0 V .1 U 49 ;0 11 1. 1 IX -01 @14j Aot :1 .4 a 0%4 U -0-0 40-04 0:3 0 0 a U 0 t "s a U 0 W-0 0 4 1" C3 -4 4j :3 @4 00 U 0 V 0 i 0 1, @# - .Case Study Comminity W 0 W 00 00. 4 P. " M W U Z- Ir. En Q 94 X U W A-4 Cranston, RI 1 1 2 3 7 Westerly, RI 2 1 a 1 1 3 17 Northanpton, MR I 1 1 2 1 11 2 19+ Wayne Township, M 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 17 Southanpton Town, NY 5 1 2 2 2 2 14 Bergen County, M 9 7 a 4 1 7 4 10 1 2 53 Jersey Shore, Ph 2 1 1 1 3 1 6 2 2 1 7 2 29+ Wheel ing, W 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 17 Prince Geo. Co. MD 3 4 5 3 2 1 1. 2 1 2 24 Savannah, GA 2 4 3 1 5 1 4 4 2 1 2 2 31 Sarasota Co., FL 2 3 4 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 27 Toledo, CH 4 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 17 Palatine, IL 2 2 2 1 4 1 3 2 1 1 1 1. 21 Prairie du Chien, WS I 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 2 14 Orleans Parish, LA 1 2 2 5 1 2 1 14 7Ulsa, OK 1 2 3 2 3 1 8 2 1 2 1 26 .Harris County, TX 5 5 3 2 4 1 5 4 2 3 1 35+ Cape Girardeau, MD 2 1 1 6 1 3 2 1 1 18 Omaha Area, NB I 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 15 Fargo, ND 3 4 1 2 3 2 2 2 19 Arvada, CO 3 4 3 2 1 1 1 15 Scottsdale,AZ 2 2 4 2 5 2 1 1 19 San Diego Go., CA 2 5 2 4 13 Total SaMle 28 49 51 30 68 19 100 35 33 22 21 11 6 8 481+ +Public @Ieeting also held. Formulation of Scenarios To evaluate a range of regulatory actions, three scenarios were formulated. The three comprise a continuum from no regu- lations (Scenario I) to moderate regulations (Scenario II) to a combination of stringent preventive and corrective regulations (Scenario III). To avoid measuring the effects of varying de- grees of regulation between communities, the application of the particular scenario in a case study community was assumed to be paralleled by the application of the same regulatory sce- nario throughout the nation. All regulations were assumed to be properly administered and enforced. In Scenario I (Market Scenario) there are no floodplain regulations imposed on individuals or local government. The free market with its variations in preferences, price, supply, demand and local development policies and regulations governs future growth and development. Scenario II assumes regulation of the floodplain analogous to the present National Flood Insurance Program as it is now being administered. The preventive aspects of floodplain regu- lations are carried out by altering construction practices to require new structures to be elevated so that the first floor is at or above the level of the 100-year flood and no new deve- lopment is permitted in a designated floodway unless it is de- signed in a manner that will not raise the 100-year flood ele- vation. The corrective elements in terms of applying substan- tial improvement regulati ons are considered to be negligible. 1 In Scenario III, a stringent regime of floodplain regula- tions is imposed. This includes the application of preventive aspects in terms of land use measures and the corrective aspects in terms of applying substantial improvement regulations through 1 Sheaffer & Roland, Inc., Substantial Improvement. -74- purchase and removal or other related action in a manner that will correct past unwise land use decisiQns, In this scenario, new structures are prohibited in the hazard area. The scenario approach was chosen because it allows projec- tions to be made by using information on current variables and rates of change. Erickson has stated that: Scenarios are expedient, common-sense forecasts made with the help of empirical generalizations ... [and are] of use in surmising about the conse- 1 quences of an hypothesis given to hold true ... [and are particularly useful] ... in their ability to help provide insights into decisions needed for preventing, diverting, or en- couraging the evoluti 5n of a social system at spe- cific points in time. The scenario approach allows an evaluation of floodplain issues within the context of all community issues. It allows the analysis to focus on linkages of interactions among the diverse community elements and policies and to protect side effects as well as the evolution of the total system. Thus, the approach recognizes that a specific decision on any issue causes a progression of outcomes, some of which may stimulate the modification or reformulation of goals and policies. While scenarios are capable of iteration, outcomes are not predicted according to rigorous mathematical mode ls. The alternative scenario approach is useful because it has the potential to produce strong images of the future. Such images can be com- municated and allow private and public interests to get a clear idea of what could happen. N. J. Erickson, Scenario Methodology in Natural Hazards Research (Boulder: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, 1975) p. 12. 2Herman Kahn and Anthony J. Wiener, The Year 2000: A Frame- work for Speculation on the Next Thirty-Three Years (New York: MacMillan, 1967) p. 6, cited in ibid, p. 11. -75@ Projections for each scenario can be based on available forecasts of population and land use-for each case study community. The limitations of the data and the uncertainty of other variables disallow precise or formal prediction. Therefore, the projections for each scenario should be considered indicative. However, based on the local projections of population and land use, in- formation and opinions received from local persons, and experienced judgments, reasonable conclusions about the range of future con- ditions could be made for the different scenarios in each case study area. The analysis of the potential effects of floodplain regula- tions within each case study area was based on projections of key variables to 1980 and 1990, using 1975 conditions as a base. Scenarios for each community in 1980 and 1990 were developed especially emphasi zing occupance, i.e., housing, population, and land use as the basis for simulating future economic, social, and environmental effects. Changes in these variables were projected under the three regimes of floodplain regulations. Flood losses were expressed in 1975 dollars. Projection Methodology The projection methodology was designed to adapt locally- generated projections, forecasts and predictions to the scenario structure. For each case study, locally-generated growth pro- jections of population and land use were eValuated within a re- gionalt State And national context. Past trends were examined on a comparative basis. Local projections were compared with projected sub-State, State and national trends, including such Federal analyses as Current Population Reports, Series P-25, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis OBERS Reports, Series E and F. Local persons in both the public and private sector were con- sulted to validate or modify these projections. The final re- sponsibility rested with the case study teams who incorporated -76- this information with their own assessments of the empirical evi- dence, e.g., the amount, location and nature of available land; the supply and demand for housing; the operation and future re- quirements of key industries; intra-regional and inter-regional competition for markets; cultural factors affecting net migra- tion patterns; and the political motivations behind certain pro- jections. In each case study community the existing floodplain regula- tions were assessed to ascertain where on the regulatory con- tinuum from Scenario I to Scenario III they fall. Once this was determined it became the operational scenario and the other scenarios were then formulated. The projection of future floodplain land uses was based on known public and private programming, the application of certain planning standards (based on per capita or per dwelling unit demand) to occupance parameters, and certain locally-confirmed assumptions about residential density with respect to alterna- tive regimes of regulation. The same orocedure was conducted for projecting land uses in nonhazard areas. The sensitivity to various degrees of regulations was discussed with local per- sons. In general, differences in postulated density between hazard and nonhazard areas were found in only those case studies in which expert consensus held that land availability was dimi- nished by more stringent regulations. Residential flood losses were taken as a function of the currently observed percent of value of a structure and its con- tents (for a structure of a given type) lost on an average an- nual basis applied to projected units at an assumed value per unit (in co nstant prices). Similarly, tax base foregone or generated by a scenario was a function of the projected develop- ment and its value. These projections were modified to incor- porate either added values or losses which would stem from the ,77--! regulations. The rate of taxation was assumed to be constant for the entire 15-year period. The scenario approach does provide some advantages because of its comparative nature. A similar band of error would be ascribed to all of the scenarios, therefore making it.unnecessary to determine the exact amount of error. An error of a certain percent in one scenario is likely to be replicated to a similar extent in the same direction in the others. This feature pre- serves the analytical utility of the scenario method of pro- jection by preserving the integrity of each scenario. To facilitate the evaluations, all the economic effects of floodplain regulations were defined in average annual terms. Effects which were deemed to be one-time occurrences were trans- lated into average annual terms by assuming that their impacts would be evenly distributed over a 20-year period. This time span was chosen as a normal period for the amortization of the building cost s. Other one-time effects were similarly treated so that the basis for comparison and aggregation would be com- mon to all effects. It should be noted that the evaluations were not made for the cumulative effects of.regulations over time, but for the effects of regulation at specific points in the future. Projected effects of alternative floodplain regulations were assessed on an average annual basis holding prices constant at the 1975 level rather than on the customary discounted present value basis. The purpose of the projections was to facilitate interscenario comparison at two points in the future. By using average annual change in constant prices, the need for price projection while maintaining comparability was elimi- -78- nated. Also, because the true nature of development is not uniform, greater development will occur in some years than in others. By using an average annual basis in constant dollars, this unevenness does not affect the analysis. Application to the Nation The case studies selected (Figure 5) .can be'viewed as a sample that is skewed toward large communities in which urban- ization Pressures-are intense. In statistical nomenclature, the sample is defined as systematic rather than formally random or formally stratified. This decision was based on the obser- vation that..in growth areas, the effects of floodplain regula- tions will be more discernible. Because the effects of many aspects of regulations will occur in the future, a static or no growth situation would not be a good situation to measure effects. Ratios of occupance and flood loss parameters were com- puted to relate the sample of case studies to the urban areas of the nation. The proportion of housing units and population and land use area was fairly consistent. Thus, the aggregate sample could be taken to represent the nation's urban flood- prone universe. While the procedure is coarse and may involve a considerable degree of imprecision, this sample approach was pursued to pro- ject future changes in occupance and losses. The inclusion of many sparsely populated and static small towns in the case stu- dies would have made the effects more difficult to evaluate. The reasoning was that where little.development was being under- taken, the effects of regulations would be obscured. The skew- ness of losses in the direction of large urban areas indicates -79- that the accuracy or conservativeness of this ratio will improve over time (because it is held constant). Third, this approach imparts a national urban perspective to the case study findings, in the absence of a more reliable national data base. Fourth, in sheer numbers of people, homes, acres and losses, the sample is so large that it is more representative of the actual occu- pance of the nation's flood-prone areas in scale than a more statistically refined sample. Thus, bearing in mind the reser- vation that it is difficult to represent a universe whose charac- teristics are poorly known, application of the sample results to the nation's urban floodplains can be considered a useful in- dication of the effects regulations will have in the nation's urban floodplains. -80- CHAPTER IV CASE STUDY FINDINGS In each study area, information was developed on the economic, social, and environmental conditions prevailing i n 1975 and the forces that are likely to affect them in the future. The informa- tion, which was obtained through field investigations, is summarized in this chapter. The chapter is organized into five sections. The first de- scribes the current floodplain regulations in the study areas. The second presents the current socio-economic characteristics of resi- dents, and environmental characteristics of the study areas. The third contains an estimate of the current level of flood damages. The fourth discusses the economic effects of regulations which are currently operating in the study areas. The fifth contains in- formation on the status of the case studies in the National Flood Insurance Program. Current Floodplain Regulations Floodplain regulations were evaluated in each of the case study areas (see Table 1, page 6). Seventeen of the case study communities have Regular Program status in the NFIP and the others participate in the Emergency Program. (Bergen County was not in- cluded in this analysis.) The 100-year floodplain has been iden- tified in all of the study areas although in Tulsa there is dis- agreement over the boundaries. Regulations that exceed the minimum requirements of the NFIP were found in 10 case study areas. Seven study areas have adopted -81- the minimum requirements. The remaining areas are in the Emer- gency Program and are presumed to be in the process of enacting appropriate regulations. Tulsa, because of the disagreement over the delineation of the 100-year floodplain, has enacted a building moratorium in the flood hazard area as a holding action until the disagreement is resolved. Nevertheless, Tulsa was recorded as a community which exceeded the minimum requirements. A community can regulate land uses in a floodplain by adopting either an exclusive floodplain zone or by superimposing a flood- plain overlay zone on existing zones. An exclusive floodplain zone has been instituted in 6 communities (indicated by a Z in Table 1). The floodplain zone supersedes previous zoning desig- nations. For example, an area that was once zoned as residential is now zoned floodplain. In some communities, a portion of the floodplain is classified by local officials as a conservation zone. Sarastoa County has zoned parts of the 100-year floodplain as marine conservancy districts where no urban uses are permitted. The implementation of either type of floodplain zone is through the exercise of the police powers of the states. The exercise of such powers must meet tests of reasonableness and flexibility. Flexibility is achieved in floodplain zones through amendments, variances, and special use permits. With respect to habitable floor elevations., 8 of the case study areas require elevations equal to the 100-year flood level (indicated by a 0 in Table 1). In 9 study areas, buildings are required to be above the 100-year flood level. of these 9 com- munities, 4 specify 2 feet or more above the 100-year base flood level (Westerly, Southampton, Prairie du Chien, and Arvada). The --communities in'*,the Emergency Program currently do not specify elevations. -82- The administration of floodplain regulations is carried out through a building permit system in 18 communities. In 12 of these, the building codes contain provisions specifically related to construction in the floodplain. Yn coastal communities, where hurricanes pose a serious threat, construction requirements include beachfront setbacks and structural standards used in conjunction with elevation [email protected] meet the stress of added wind and wave action. Subdivision regulations are used by 12 communities to regulate the runoff from urban develoDment. Such regulations included stormwater detention, compensatory storage to offset the effects of fills in floodplains, and restrictions on-the rate of runoff, e.g., 0.15 cfs per acre. A density transfer scheme is used in 5 communities-to-encourage developers to preserve open space in floodplains. Units permitted under normal density requirements are transferred from the hazard portion of a tract of land to the nonhazard portion. This tacitly exchanges increased net density in the nonhazard area for the pre- servation of open space in the hazard area. The overall density of the entire parcel is held constant. In Palatine, for example, this approach has resulted in a number of managed floodplain areas with dwellings on the fringes of lakes and lagoons with common acreage maintained as open space. Residents have found the value of their properties in these areas has increased. Other areas where this regulatory tool was used successfully include Wayne Township, Prince George's County, Arvada, and Scottsdale. in Scottsdale, the city has been adding the 100-year floodplain to its greenbelt system by securing easements. Prince George's County is hopeful this technique will also result in an upgrading of housing and an increase in riverine open space which is called for in their wedges (open space) and corridors (developed areas) land use plan. -83- In-6 case study areas, the 100-year floodplain is broken down into a floodway and a flood fringe area. . When a floodway is de- fined, regulations prohibit development which would increase the level of the 100-year flood above a predetermined level. The NFIP minimum requirement is leas than a 1-foot rise. In Wayne Town- .ship, suggested State regulations would prohibit fill which would raise the base flood level by more than 0.2 feet, . Toledo imposes a 0.5-feet standard through the Ohio Department of Natural Re- sources regulations, Several other communities have indicated that they are in the process of delineating the floodway and intend to regulate further development. Wetlands conservation requirements prevent development in some flood hazard areas. For example, New York (Southamoton), Maryland (Prince George's County), and Florida (Sarasota County) regulate wetlands. Maryland also uses its Scenic River designation to prohibit development in many areas. Coastal zone management regu- lations are in effect or in the imDlementation phase in Rhode Island (Westerly), New York, Florida, Louisiana (Orleans Parish), and Texas (Harris County)., In Texas, for example, building standards are beina developed to mitigate damages from wind, and waves and debris associated with storm events. A variety of techniques are used to achieve floodplain regu- lation in the case study areas. Even in some of the fastest -growing communities, strict regulations have been adopted. Floodplain regulations as now practiced by those communities in the NFIP Regular Program use the minimum requirements of the NFIP as a base or, point of departure. Thus, the current experience may be viewed as moving from Scenario II (moderate regulations) toward Scenario III (stringent regulations). As previously stated, regulations in 10 of the case studies exceeded the NFIP minimum requirements which are similar to Scenario II. Current Occupance Characteristics Housing, population, land use, socio-economic, and environ- mental characteristics of the case study areas in 1975 provide base data, from which the future effects of regulating scenarios are projected, The following sections discuss differences in settle- ment patterns and socio-economic factors between the 100-year flood- plains and the remainder of the study areas. The number of housing units, businesses, public buildings and other structures existing in the 100-year floodplain and the non- hazard areas of the case study communities was estimated using available data supplemented with field observations. The initial effort was to divide the case study areas between the 100-year floodplain and the nonhazard area. The most recent municipal re- cords were used'to gain information on occupance. Building per- mit data were used to supplement aerial photographs and census data. In all cases, field observations were conducted to verify the data and to assess the degree to which new and existing struc- tures in the 100-year floodplain had been elevated. Housing Dwelling units located within the 100-year floodplain were estimated from census information, areal photographs and planning documents. They totaled 162,800 or 13.5 percent of all housing units in the sample study areas in 1975. Dwelling units that are located below the level of the 100-year flood stage total 87,400. Thus, there are 75,400 dwelling units located within the flood hazard area but which are elevated above the 100-year flood elevation. The dwelling units at risk account for 7.2 percent of the total dwelling uniLs (see Table 7). Table 7 Distribution of Dwelling Units in the Case Study Communities, 1975. (Rounded to Nearest 100) Dwelling Units a Total Flood Study Hazard Percent Percent of Percent Of._ Case Study Community Area Area of Total At-Riskb Total Study Flood Hazard I Area Area Cranston, RI 22:600 1,000 4.4 900 3.9 90.0 Westerly, RI 7 600 700 9.2 700 9.2 100.0 Northampton, MA 9,300 100 1 1 100 1.1 100.0 Wayne Township, NJ 14,200 1,900 13.4 1,900 13.4 100.0 Southampton Town, NY 18,000 3,000 16.7 3,000 16.7. 100.0 Jersey Shore, PA 1,900 1,000 52.6 1,000 52.6 100.0 Wheeling, WV 13,000 5,200 40.0 5,200 40.0 100.0 Prince Geo. Cty., 14D 222,000 1,800 0.8 700 0.3 38.9 Savannah, GA 39,600 2,900 7.3 1,000 2.5 34.5 Sarasota County, FL 22,300 14,300 64.1 3,900 17.5 27.3 00 1 a% 4.0 73.3 Palatine, IL 7,800 700 9.0 700 9.0 100.0 Tole do, OH 137,000 7,500 5-5 F 5,500 Prairie du Chien, WI 2,100 200 9.5 200 9.5 100.0 Orleans.Parish, LA 220,700 81,400 36.9 32,600 16.4 40.0 Tulsa, OK 135,000 5,800 4.3 5,000 3.7 86.2 Harris County, TX 110,900 24,700 22.3 20,400 18.4 82.61 Cape Girardeau, MO 11,200 Soo 4.5 500 4.5 100.0 Omaha Area, NB 136,800 1,600 1.2 1,600 1.2 100.0 Fargo, ND 19,800 4,900 24.7 Bob 4.0 16.3 Arvada, CO 23,000 1,400 6.1 1,200 5.2 85.7 Scottsdale, AZ 32,400 2,200 6 .8 Soo 1.5 22.7 Sample Total 1,207,200 162,800 87,400 Sample Mean 13.5 7.2 53.7 a Housing data for 21 case studies. (Bergen and San Diego Counties excluded due to lack of*comparable data.) Terms used are defined as in the 1970 U.S. Census of Population and Housing. bAt-Risk = Subject to 100-year flood elevation (at grade). The analysis of substantial improvements' referred to earlier reported a slightly higher percentage (7.9 percent) for total floodplain dwelling units at risk than what is reported here@ The differences in the estimates are due to subsequent changes in Fargo, North Dakota.. Completion of a channel improvement project for, a.county drain will have an estimated effect of removing 90 percent of 1975 floodplain structures from the 100-year floodplain. In this study, it was assumed that the flood control project was completed. Thus, the number of dwelling units at risk in Fargo was reduced to 800 from the 4-,900 reported in the earlier study. Thus, the total number of units at risk and their percentage of the total housing stock are lower in thi's investigation. There was a wide variation.in.the.concentration of.dwelling units in the floodplain (see Table 7). Communities with.more 7 than 30 percent of their dwelling units.in the 100-y6ar floodplain include Jersey Shore, Wheeling, Sarasota County, and Orleans Parish. ,On the other hand,'.there are 13 case study areas in which less than 10 percent.,ofthe dwelling units are within.the 100-year floodplain.. In 6 of these areas, less than 5 percent of the dwelling units are in the floodplain--Cranston, Northampton, Prince George's Count5@, Tulsa, Cape Girardeau, and Omaha. There are only.10 case study areas with.less than 5 percent of their dwelling units at -risk. Population Floodplain population is closely related to floodplain housing. The hazard area population, for the combined case studies is 480,500 or 13.8 percent of the total population, Because of'elevation, how- ever, thIe population at risk is only 266,50.0 or 7,6 percent of the total population (see Table 8). of the 21 case study areas evaluated (San Diego and Bergen County are not included in these analyses), 10 had 5 percent or less of their population at risk, Sheaffer & Roland, Substantial Improvement, Table A-13, p. A-16- -87- Table 8 Distribution of Population in the Case Study Communities, 1975. (Rounded to Nearest 100) Popu ation a Total d Study rd Percent b IPercent of -Percent of Case Study Community Area of Total At-Risk Total Study Flood Hazard Area Area Cranston, RI 76,300 3,400 4.5 2,900 3.8 85.3 Westerly, RI 22,800 4,000 17.5 4,000 17.5 100.0 Northampton, MA 32,000 300 0.9 300 0.9 100.0 Wayne Township, NJ 50,200 51800 11.6 5,800 11.6 100 0 Southampton Town, NY 90,000 11,500 12.8 11,500 12.8 100.0 Jersey Shore, PA 5,200 2,900 55.8 2,900 55.8 100.0 Wheeling, WV 46,500 13,700 29.5 13,700 29.5 100.0 I Prince Geo. Cty., MD 674,800 4,600 0.7 2,000 0.3 43.5 00 00 Savannah, GA 118,600 9,800 8.3 3,500 2.8 33.7 Sarasota Couty, FL 51,800 1 31,400 60.6 8,600 16.6 27.4 Toledo, OH 377,000 22,800 6.1 16,300 4.3 71.5 Palatine, IL WI 26,500 2,300 8.7 2,300 8.7 100.0 Prairie du Chien, 5,700 600 10.5 600 10.5 100.0 Orleans Parish, LA 564,300 239,400 42.4 95#800 17.0 40.0 Tulsa, OK F348,800 15,900 4.6 15,000 4.3 94.3 Harris County, TX 366,000 81,600 22.3 67,400 18.4 82.6 Cape Girardeau, MO 36,300 1,800 5.0 8 5.0 100.0 Omaha Area, NB 382,100 4,700 1.2 4,500 1.2 '-95.7 1 1, " Fargo, ND 55,800 13,600 24.4 2,200 3.9 16.2 Arvada, CO 88,400 4,900 8.5 4,200 9.0 85.7 Scottsdale, AZ 70,100 5,500 8.1 1,400 2.1 25.5 Sample Total 3,489,200 480,500 265,50o Sample Mean 13.8 7.6 aPopulation data for 21 case studies. (Berqen and San Dieqo Counties excluded due to lack of comparable data.) Terms used are as defined in the 1970 U.S. Census of Population. bAt-Risk = Subject to 100-year'f lood elevation (at grade). Land Use The existing land use in the case study areas was analyzed to establish a base upon which future land use projections are built. Development in both the 100-year flood.plain and the nonhazard area was measured and evaluated. The number of floodplain acres.and extent of development in the case study communities are tabulated in Table 9. The aggre- gate floodplain comprised about 20 percent of the total combined study areas. It.accounted for 12 percent of all development in the case study communities. The floodplains of the sample communities were generally-less developed than the nonhazard areas. Only 17.8 percent of the total floodplain acreage was developed in contrast to 29_4 percent of the .nonhazard area acreage. There are 5 communities that have a high rate,of development in the floodplain (more than 50 percent). Included are older riverine-oriented communities that were related to rivertransporta- tion or river crossings. Examples of such communities include Jersey Shore, Wheeling, and Prairie du Chien. Also included are communities that have expanded recently and in which there is a cultural/aesthetic reason to develop in floodplains due.to..the rela- tive absence of water views, topographical relief, and vegetation outside the floodplain. Tulsa and Sarasota@County are examples. A possible explanation for these development patterns is that an awareness of the flood hazard and the availability of nonhazard developable land has led to a slower rate'of developme nt in the 100- year floodplain than in the community as a whole. Part of the ex- _89- -06- r, C't 0 al 3 C Ink %C -j w cc ON 0% w All NJ Ab a% rQ w a% o un N Ln @j w r-j N a ab N z '-4 %a '@4 @j ri 0 cr@ 0 w 0 a 0 0 @j N Ab 0 r-j @- 0 0 -4 > COCO- 99 0 0 cocoa 00000 cocoa OOCQ r? U) FL (D Un t-0 bi iv I Ul A. D. 0% w C6 --n > 0 'C'j 't 0 0 o 00000 cocoa cocoa cQoo to @O Un @D C7% N 0 Nj @- 0 N) @A rn 01, w w r-j 14 Cs hi J@. 0-@ w t-m @O -4 @O -4 rt, NJ r-j C a w 0 @D b. as j-- 0 w a% w 0 -j z > (D 0 as 0 0 0 C 0 @n N a% 00 0- w 4b m. Cm t-j 0000- 1w 0 0 00000 00000 cocoa coca 0 P" hi IQ as @-& 0% @- w z " @-& @-. %Q x rt FL 31 w NJ "i Ab 0 as 11-i Li C71 ab 0- -4 w Ab Ab z vi rr 00 01-A hi in xi. Lm @D -i vi as Ab w )-A 0 Ab @O w 0 Ab 0 0 CO (n -9:1. un .0. Oll (.m -4 -4 -1 NJ NJ ko (V x @10 w ul 00 .0- 0 @- w -i as 1-" w @O @O CO @Q a% %0 a 0 Ln to @j ze to > ab 0 m NJ fQ j2b N Ln Nj Ln ON w fli 0- Ln %D 0 Cr% w @m @j w t@j w %0 CO "- I A m @j -j 11% > ;J;j rf, planation may also lie in the fact that because of physical con- straints in some areas, some floodplains are comparatively more expensive to develop, and thus are the last lands to be developed. While this practice of development has helped to mitigate flood losses, the po tential for increasing future flood losses is high, On the other hand, this information shows that the supply of undeveloped land outside the 100-year floodplain is abundant; in no community was more than 80 percent of the nonhazard area developed. As previously stated, only 17.8 percent of the 100-year flood- plain and 29.4 percent of the nonhazard area were developed at the time of the field investigations, The distribution of this dev6- lopment among the general land use classifications of residential, commercial, industrial, publicf and urban support facilities (trans- port ation, communications, and utilities) is tabulated in Table 10 for each case study area. A comparison-of land uses in the floodplain with nonhazard portions of the case studies shows that residential use accounts for less than 9 percent of the aggregate floodplain land or about 48 percept of total floodplain development. In comparison, resi- dential uses account for nearly 16 percent of the aggregate non- hazard area, or 53 percent of total development in nonhazard areas. Commercial uses account for slightly more than 2 percent of the sample's floodplain and slightly less than 2 percent of the non- hazard area. In Wayne Township, Wheeling, and Sarasota, commer- _91- Table 10: Distribution of Developed Land Uses in Floodplains (FHA) and Nonha7ard Areas (NHA), 1975 (Expressed as Percent of Development in the Respective Floodplains and Nonhazard Areas) DEVELOPED CASE RMIDENrIAL OOMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC M TOTAL SIM 00MMUNM FHA N11A F11A MIA F1 1A NIM MIA NRA FM NMA FHA NHA Cranston, R1 12 31 3 2 @ 1 18 16 41 51 Westerlyo, R1 a 18 2 2 1 1 1 2 9 12 30 NorthapVtone MR 1 12 *b *b *b 51) 3 .3 3 6 5 26 Wayne Township, M 16 47 11 4 3 19 a a 17 11 46 80 Southanipton Town? NY NA Nh Nh NA Nh Nh NA NA Nh NN NA NA Jersey Shore, PA 56 41 3 3 2 17 4 1 13 20 89 72 Wheel inig, W 24 30 12 4 9 2 4 4 20 19 71 60 Prince Geo. Cty.6 MD 3 13 a a a -16 17 a a 15 32 Savannah, GA 24 63 4 `3 2 4 4 a 19 47 90 Sarasota Cty.,, FL 42 51 18 22 a a a a a 33 74 7bledo, OH' 17 46 1 6 4 11 5 5 0 3 33 72 Palatine,, 11, 16 53 3 6 0 4 12 13 a a 25 77 Prairie du Chien, WS 12 16 2 3 6 5 10 10 34- 21 64 58 Orleans Parish,, IA 7 25 2 2 2 9 4 11 7 17 19" 64 Tulsa, CK 28 21 7 4 10 3 1 1 10 12 58 41 Harris County, TX 6 a 1 1 3 2 a a a a 10 10 Cape Girardeau, MD 5 34 6 3 16 * 1 4 13 D 41 56 Q-Mha Area . NB 5 24 2 3 2 5 4 4 1 12 15 48 Fargo, ND 16 17 7 5 2 1 7 8 11 35 37 66 Arvada, 00 27 29 2 1 1 a a- a 33 33 Scottsdale, AZ 19 14 3 2 2 1 A a a 30 17 SAMPLE MEAN 8.6 15.9 2.1 1.8 2.6 2.5 1.5 4.8 3.0 4.2 17.8 29.4 less than 0.5 percent a Included under other cateqories of developed land uses bCommercial/Industrial combined MA Not Available cial development is a significant use in the floodplain, In terms of the overall sanple, commercial uses account for about 12 and 6 percent of the development in the floodplain and nonhazard areas, respectively. Industrial use accounts for less than 3 percent of the flood- plain land use and virtually the same in the nonhazard area, Com- munities in which industrial land use is a relatively high percentage of the floodplain development include Cranston, Wheeling, Savannah, Cape Girardeau, and Tulsa, Public uses of the floodplain include public buildings, such as municipal offices, schools,- public wor'jll-s facilities indoor re- creation structures and health centers, Subsumed under this cate- gory are sizilar activities operated by not for profit owners, Pub- lic facilities in the floodplain comprise less than 2 percent of its development. In contrast, nearly 5 percent of the nonhazard area houses public uses. Public facilities constitute an unusually nt in Prince George's County, large share of floodplain developme t Palatine and Prairie du Chien, In Prince George's County, this is due to proximity to the nation's capital and the large amount of public holdings in the floodplain; the latter two corurtunities are very small with disproportionately large floodplains and dis- proportionately high,development in them, Urban support facilities which include transportation, commun-4- cation, and utility facilities CTCU) account for 3 percent of the floodplain and 4 percent of the nonhazard area, In communities such as Cranston, Wayne Township, Jersey Shore, Wheeling, Prairie -93- du Chien, Tulsa, Cape Girardeau, and Fargd more than 10 percent of the floodplain development is devoted to these uses. Inter- state highways contribute significantly to these totals. A National Urban Perspective The sample case study communities can be used to understand the universe of floodprone communities as reported by the Federal Insurance Administration. The sample can be related to the nation in terms of housingpopulation and.de.veloped land. Of the 1, 207,200 dwelling units in the sample, 162,800 or 13.5 percent were situated in the floodplain. The FIA reported 6,238,000 one to four family dwelling units in the floodplains of all NFIP communities, which are virtually all urban places. This estimate can be adjusted by applying the housing distribution rates presented in the,1975 Annual Survey of Housing. The Survey estimated that one to four family units comprise 84.8 percent of occupied units. The adjusted universe of occupied floodplai 11n dwelling units is then 7,356,000.1 FIA does not estimate units at risk. If the 53.7 percent (87,400 at risk 162,800 in the floodplain) at risk factor is applied to this ad- justed universe, 3,950,000 housing units are at risk in the nation, The case study sample,, therefore, is assumed to account for 2.21 percentof that esti-mated universe of urban dwelling units at risk as it does for all floodplain dwelling units. In.other research, the universe of floodplain housing at ri sk was estimated at 4.5 million units. 2 That research was based on applying the 7.6 percent at risk rate noted previously Asee page 87 ) to the estimated 61.3 million dwelling units in the 1FIA, Status Report, 30 September 1977. 2Sheaffer and Roland, Substantial Improvement,.pp. 36-37. -94- nation with first floor elevations at ornear grade. The estimate of 3,.95 million units at risk developed in this report (7.36 million for.-all floo.dplain dwelling units) is a national estimate for the 15,568 communities -participating in the NFIP. If one were to apply the 7.2 percent at risk rates to the nation's entire housing stock (61.3 million) an estimated 4.41 million units would be at risk. The 460,000 difference between 4.41 million units and the 3.95 million-units estimated in this tesearch represents the number of housing units at risk in com- munities not partici pating in the NFIP. These units would there- fore presumably not be in urban places. The sample is skewed toward larger urban areas in terms of population. About four-fifths of the sample communities have populations of between 20,000 and 500,000 (see Table 11). Only about one-fifth of Regular Program communities in the,NFIP are in this category.. This skewness was deliberate, allowing research to focus on communities where change is frequent enough and large enough to shed light on the effects of floodplain regulations. Assuming, as was done above, that NFIP communities are vir- tually all urban places, and that communities outside the NFIP Are essentially all rura 1, the sample population can be expressed as a fraction of the nation's urban floodplains. Although a com- parable disaggregAtion of all NFIP communities was notavailable, ari aggregate 175.2 million was recorded as the po .pulation of all NFIP communities as of 30 March 1976'. 1 , This indicat.es that the sample population of 3,489,200 represents 1.99 percent of the p6pul ation universe of NFIP floodprone communities. 1FIA, Status Report, 30 September 1977. _95- Table 11: Distribution of Flood-Prone Communities by Total Community Population Sample Case NFIP Regular Studiesc Programa Total Population Number Percent Number Percent 0 - 11000 0 0.0 154 16.9 1,001 - 5,000 0 0.0 307 33.8 5,001 - 20,000 2 9.5 255 28.1 20,001 - 50,000 5 23.8 108 11.9 50,001 - 100,000 7 33.3 46 5.1 100,001 - 500,000 5 23.8 36 4.0 500,001 - 1,000,000 2 9.5 1 0.1 Over 1,000,000d 0 0.0 2 0.2 Total 21 99.9b 909 100.1b Tctal Population 3,489,200 24,160,500 Median 75,000 4,972 Mean 166,152, 4,859 aFederal Insurance Administration, National Statistical Survey, 30 June 1977. Regular Program communities reported were 1,014; 105 were not classified in any population group. Comparable data for Emergency Program communities were not available. bSum differs from 100.0 percent due.to rounding. cBergen and San Diego Counties not included. dMidpoint of final class interval assumed to be 2 million. -96- Similarly, in terms of the 100-year floodplain, the sample is weighted toward communities with large floodplain areas. As presented in Table 12, the median area of the sample's floodplain is about 3,300 acres, while the median for all communities parti- cipating in the NFIP is 489 acres. The means are 16,555 acres and 1,648 acres, respectively. When only the communities in the Regular Program of NFIP are considered, the median increases slightly to 514 acres. The total acreage of the floodplains of the sample communities , 331,100 acres,compris.es 1.37 percent of the flood hazard'area of all NFIP communities (24,132,800 acres). On the average, 19.7 percent of the land area in the study communities was estimated to be in the 100-year floodplain. This exceeds substantially two other estimates of the percentage of urban areas in our nation Is floodpla ins (,e.g., the 1967 estimate made by the U, S, Department of Agriculture of 4.6 percent, and the 1973 estimate made by the Corps of Engineers o@ 5.5 percent). 1 FIA has estimated that 9.4 percent of the area in Regular Program communities is in the 100-year floodplain. 2 Goddard's 1973 esti- mates, based on another sample of urban communities, is much closer to what was found in this study. In his sample of communities, the floodplain constituted 16.2 percent of the total land area. 3 Economic and Social Characteristics of.the Population As with many other public programs, floodplain regulations have been thought to potentially,alter the socio-economic com- plexion of an.entire community or part of it. By the same token, an entrenched pattern of existing socio-economic characteristics 1Cited in Goddard, Evaluation. 2 FIA, Status Report, September 1977. 3Goddard, Evaluation, p. 21. -97- Table 12: Distribution of Flood-Frone Communities by Size of Floodplain Sample Case NFIP a Flood Hazard Area Studiesb Total Regular Program (in acres) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent >16, 000d 3 14.3 158 1.1 37 3.2 9,600 - 15,999 1 4.8 121 0.8 6 0.5 6,400 - 9,599 2 9.5 202 1.4 20 1.7 4,800 - 6,399 1 4.8 280 1.9 26 2.3 3,200 - 4,799 5 23.8 657 4.5 47 4.1 1,920 - 3,199 2 9.5 1,087 7.4 86 7.4 1,280 - 11919 3 14.3 903 6.2 63 5.5 640 - 1,279 1 4.8 1,641 11.2 151 13.1 <640 3 14.3 9,591 65.5 719 62.2 Total 21' 100.1c 14,642 100.0 1,155 100.0 Median 3,300 acres 489 acres 514 acres Mean 16_,555 acres 1,648 acres 2,681 acres aFederal Insurance Administration, National Statistical Survey, 30 June 1977. bBergen and San Diego Counties not included. cSum exceeds 100.0 percent due to roundina. dMidpoint of class interval assumed to be 50,000 acres. -98- may make adjustment or changes in response to regulations a very difficult process. Characteristics that are apt to be particularly important are racial composition; size of the family and dependent population (persons who are under 18 and over 65 years of age); and income (Table 13). That is, for families with the same income, the ability to maintain a certain standard of living and adjust to government regulations probably falls as family size and the num- ber of dependents rise. Thereforef it is important to determine how regulations in a given socio-economic context affect the stan- dard of living of floodplain residents compared with nonfloodplain residents. The nonwhite population in the case studv communities, ex- cluding Orleans Parish, average 12.6 percent of the total, which is only slightly lower than the 13.7 percent proportion of non- white pQpulAtion @n the nation's urban areas, (.The addition of Orleans Parish-, which.re.presents nearly 20 percent of the total sample populationt raises the nonwhite population percent to 18.9.) Contrary to an original hypothesis, the proportion of nonwhites in the floodplain is much lower, averaging only 6'.4 percent (see Table 13). In several case study areas, the floodplain locations were highly valued as homesites due to their scenic attributes and an abundance of trees, e.g., Toledo, Tulsa, and Omaha. These floodplains were occupied largely by white population. The age distribution, as reflected in the size of the depen- dent population, in the sample of communities is also quite close to the United States norm (see Table 13). For the country as a whole, the dependent population (e.g., the proportion of the population @99_ _001- a, "4tr vlap v roll E 11 @! 0-- cis 10.1 m. 0 !, 1 4 .a !@ g 5 , ;;- 8 6 @ OF 19 v P 2 rp (A rr rt 0.0 0 cl% 0 ab 0 cc U) =a, CID A- 0 0 0 0 dw 0 cc c rp d6 A. ^ J6 0. A. A. w A. 61 A. a. un A. a. CID %a cc un .4 @j @j %a 6p & @Jb & 0. 41. & all & 6" & & U" a, 6. cy, CD cc ft U" C, 0 cc co cc Ij Ab j w VI cc rt @j @j a- 0 cp, un > PQ hi 12% hi 0 vi 0 CID %c I- cletl -r,- :j @j ?D po i ID I%j PQ a 61 r@ pi W fl) Ili PO Iv IQ W 0.. db 64 w 0- w - w w do. w Cy, w A. 0 W>WCOC rt Pi w hi & w U" W fQ 6M 0 0% Ab Ab @ CID W" cv, 6m 0 w @i @v a, dw CD 0 > f@ :j !4 !j !j !0 @j :0 :j Fl- @c 97, o Nj w %D CD 0 0 @j a. 6n 0 cc a- 0 0 A. & 0 %D A- 0 CD Cr@ W 0 w 6" 0 w 0 r) a) c c r4 IQ W N K@ 60 w N N w 6) W 04 W W A- No V w w w w @j rt m m @r A ;Q Li 6 to ;p ;o. tj Zp Zo b ;o L" @j 4, L tj:w @f Go A. Q w @D pi 0 NO w CO b. a- 0 0@ a- P- m w t4 0 (D tn (b 00 wl Pi k) 0% W CD ill %a CD wtzz Z 9 M 2 1- b.-o 1- w Ow L L !FN ;F% L t., ;D t@j'tj ID t., rt N over 65 and under 18 years of age) was 44 percent of the total.1 For the floodplains in the sample, the dependent popul,ation averaged 48 percent; sli'ghtly higher than the 45 percent for the nonhazard areas. These floodplain dependent population percentages exhibit relatively little variation across communities. They ranged from a low of 39 percent in Northampton to a high of 54 percent in Prairie du Chien. Although there is no complete explanation for the higher de- pendency ratios in floodplains, part of the reason may be in family size differences. As indicated in Table 13, household size in the sample's aggregate floodplain is slightly higher (2.95) than in its nonhazard area (2.88). The average household size of housing at risk is 3.04,or 5.2 percent greater than thatfor the total study area. In allcommunities floodplain household size exceeds nonhazard household size; in 9, the opposite is true. On the whole, the difference is not great enough to infer any significance. Comparisons of family income were based on data available in the 1970 Census of Population and Housing, Except in a few small study areas outside Standard Metropolitan, Statistical Areas (SMSAs) Census Tract data, which include mean family income, were used. From this source it was concluded that the mean income for the entire sample is approximately $14,700, slightly above the $14,000 mean national income of families.2 This can be explained in part by the weight of the larger urban areas in the sample. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 619. 2 Based on 1975 disposable income from the Office of Business Economics. U.S. Department of Commerce Survey of:Current Business Statistic8, July 1976.-- Family incomes of the fl.ood.plain and nonhazard areas could not be comp ared in detail for all of the case study areas because of a lack of data. The Census Tract,boundaries-were not Always coterminous with floodplain boundaries. In communities where Block Statistics were published, these smaller data units were used to estimate floodplain characteristics. The published Block Statistics, however, did not contain family incomes. In 11 case study areas where such information was available,,the data indi- cate that incomes in the floodplain are 5.4 percent lower than in the nonhazard areas. As with most examinations of the socio-economic characteris- tics of a number of communities, this investigation uncovered substantial variation both within and among the study communities. Both high and low income families inhabit.,thelfloodplains., as do, white and nonwhite families. In some floodplains the dependency ratio is higher than it is in flood-free areas On,balance,.how- ever, the differences in the characteristics of the floodplain and nonhazard area populations average out among communities. While some floodplain residents may have difficulty adjusting to floodplain regulations, the data gathered for the 21 case study areas indicate that floodplains are not.inhabi.ted disproportionately by disadvantaged families and individuals. Housing Characteristics Data on housing types, ownership, vacancy andziean value were assembled for the case study coiwunities. This info=a- tion is tabulated in Table 13, -102- Data available from the 1970 Census of Population and Housing and other local sources showed a slightly lower in- cidence of single family homes in the case study areas than the nation as a whole. This most likely is due to the weight of large urban areas. For the 21 case study areast there is a higher incidence of single family homes in the floodplain than outside. Also, over 40-percent of the'housing stock in these areas was constructed priorlto 1940. Based on the case study conmunities kor which data were available, and where seasonal migration was not a factor (-i,e,,, beach,'resort areas), vacancy rates are greater in the floodplain-,, than in the nonhazard areas. For all case study communities the vacancy rate of the floodplain was 7.2 percent. For the nonhazard area it was 3,7 percent. The deterioration of large floodplain neighborhoods relative to nonhazard,areas iry several case studies partially accounts for this finding. The incidence of owner-occupied housing in the floodplain of the case study communities is 73.2 percent, well above the national mean of"58.1 percent, For the nonhazard area? the owner-occupied units are approximately the same as the national mean, (57. 8 percent) Comparisons of housing values between the floodplain and the'nonhazard areas were based on data available in the 1970 Census of Population and Housing- Mean housing values were taken either from-Census Tra'ct data or from Block Statistics, which ever unit was more closely coterminous with the floodplain2 boundaries. The average value of sample housing correlates closely with the national average. -103- There were significant variations between floodplain and nonhazard area housing values in several communities. The ef- fects of regulations could not be judged from the 1970 data because it reflects conditions prior to the enactment of wide- spread floodplain regulations. However, the data did show that in riverine communities lower value housing tended to be more prevalent in the floodplains because of the flooding. In 9 ccrrmunities the floodplain housing values were lower than those in the nonhazard areas. In 2 communities, housing values for the floodplain exceeded the values for nonhazard areas. in 9 communities, no difference was measured. Com- parable data were not available for Southampton Town. The variation among the case study communities is shown in Table 13. Environmental Characteristics The case study communities encompass a range of physical environments., In 7 case study areas--Westerly, Southampton, Orleans Parish, Harris County, Savannah, Cranston, and Sarasota-- there are both coastal and riverine floodplain ecosystems. At locations where coastal and riverine conditions interface, tidal marshes, dunes, lagoons, barrier reefs, and tidal ponds are found. These ecosystems are fragile environments and can be affected significantly by floodplain development. In 13 coro,- munities, the floodplain is solely related to riverine condi- tions. In the remaining community, Toledo, riverine conditions are linked and affected by conditions on Lake Erie. A variety of riverine floodplain ecosystems are represented in the sample varying with climate, topography, and river stage. -104- The climatic range falls between the situation of Fargo, North Dakota (cold prairie, low rainfalll, Scottsdale, Arizona, (hot desert, low rainfall)f andrid-latitude, teTiperate forest areas such-as Prince George-'s Countyf Maryland, Representatives of low relief topography are Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Palatine., Illinois, while Arvada, Colorado has a high altitudef inountainous foothill location. Rapid and slow rise flooding, flash flooding, and shallow flooding are represented. The floodplains at Arvada and Palatine typify "young" river systems whereas Orleans Parish, Cape Girardeau., Prairie du Chien, Omaha and.Jersey Shore are located in the floodplains of "older" major rivers, Whatever the geographic situation, the floodplain exhibits an ecology that differs from its adjacent environs, Vegetation and wildlife habitat patterns respond to the physical features of floodplains, e,g., changed (increased) water balance, asso- ciated standing water or wetland, inundation by flood, increased nutrient supply, microclinate effects (particularly in the case of inc ised valleys or dunefields), microtopography, and alluvial deposits. In areas where the environment naturally supports forest vegetation, the floodplain ecosystem will contain different tree species or a meadow-type vegetation,. In drier areas, the floodplain may be the only area to support tree vegetation. Similarly, wildlife habitat patterns exhibit the particulars of the floodplain situation. Several environmental features of floodplain and coastal hazard areas hold hydrological and ecological values that non- floodplain areas cannot offer. The basic hydrological feature of the floodplain is that it is inundated during floods . The floodplain provides natural flood storage in riverine areas and serves as an area of energy absorbtion of flood forces in coastal -105- hazard areas. When floodplain development occurs a conflict results between natural storage and the new urban uses. Dis- placement of the storage has the potential to raise flood heights at other locations. Salt marshes can be important buffers against storms. It should be noted here that floodplain development is not the only factor to increase flood levels; any development within a watershed that renders the ground surface impermeable can re- sult in increased runoff volumes and decreased runoff times both of which produce increased flood discharges and flood levels, along the stream system. In addition to its function as a natural area of stormwater storage, the floodplain has a capacity for assimilat ing waste materials. The littoral areas of coasts and rivers, particularly wetland areas, have the capacity to operate as a,filter for storm 2 water, which has the potential to remove pollutants. Further, in some situations, a hydraulic link exists between the alluvial surficial deposits of the floodplain and subsurface aquifers. In these circumstances naturally filtered storm runoff can be returned to underground water reserves or aquifers. This process is known as groundwater recharge. In the case of Arvada and Palatine, this was particularly significant since the floodplain 3 constituted the primary link between the surface and the aquifer. 1 S.G. Walesh and R.M. Videkovich, Urbanization: Hydrologic, Hydraulic and Flood Damage Effects, (West Lafayette, Indiana: 1976). 2 - J.G. Gosselink, E.P. Oduin, and R.M. Pope, The Value of the Tidal marsh, iBaton Rouge, Louisiana: Estuarine Science Department, Louisiana State University, 1973). 3John R. Sheaffer and Arthur J. Zeizel, The Water Resource in Northeastern Illinois: Planning Its Use, (Chicago: Northeastern illinois-Planning Commission, 1973). Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Urban Drainage: Major Drainage-7 way Planning, (Denver: 1976). -106- Floodplains,in some of the case study areas, provide for a regionally,rare and valued ecology which.is a powerful attraction to settlement. In certain areas--Arvada, Harris County, Tulsa, and Fargo among them--the wooded floodplains afford the major areas of tree growth in the communities and thus hold a strong appeal for areas of human habitation and recreation. Wetlands areas, tidal wetlands and ponds, and estuarine areas provide habitats that nurture the origins of fishery food chains. Their value in this capacity has been estimated to be significant in monetary terms. Although several of the case study communities, Jersey Shore, Prairie du Chien and Sarasota, exhibit a high degree of floodplain development (over 60 percent), development in the floodplain, averaging 17.8 percent, was found to be significantly less than development in the nonhazard area, averaging 29.2 percent (see Table 10, page 92).' This indicate's that knowledge of the flood hazard, or respect for natural features, has been a factor in the development of flood-prone communities. Although undeveloped land is the most predominant floodplain land use in the sample communities, the'fact that floodplains are surrounded by urban areas means that much of the natural environ- ment has been altered by adjacent development. Further, if esti- mates that urban floodplains constitute between 3 and 4 percent of the nation's floodplains are valid, then the number of environ- mental issues is greatly reduced. 2 Environmental issues and ef- fects are moat significant where floodplain regulations have a preventive role. This role is important in providing open space and recreational relief to urban areas, The willingness to pay for securing the benefits of open space has been demonstrated in 1Gosselink, et al., Value. 2USDA C1967) 3.2 percent; Corps of Engineers (1973) 3.2 per- cent; Goddard (ASCE, 1973) 3.4 percent; cited in Goddard, Evaluation. _107- Scottsdale, lmn which floodplain greenway has been acquired. In DuPage County, Illino@s, other research has shown that ecosystem and recreational benefits are valued at more than $26,00.0 per 1 acre. Flood Loss Estimates Flood damage data developed for the case studycommunities were average annual damages associated with 1975 occupance of the 100-year floodplain. These average annual damages are distri- buted among the following damage categories: residential, business (separated into commercial and industrial losses where possible), and public, including institutional. In only one case study Ciersey Shore) was a complete 1975 esti- mate of average annual losses by category availablefor the 100- year floodplain from the Corps of Engineers. In the other case study areas, estimates were most often based on general information available from the Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The data required for uniform comparison of case study communities (and extrapolation to national urban losses) were derived froin this information in consultation with the Corps or SCS. CInformation from external sources was always adjusted to 1975 price levels as a preliminary step.) Data available from the Corps could be used directly in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin and Scottsdale, Arizona. In Prairie du Chien, consultation with the Corps was required only to allocate Corps estimates between the island and the mainland. In Scottsdale, it was necessary to allocate losses to the various hazard zones. In the other 19 case study areas, the deri- 1Ongoing work by the Corps of @;ngineers, C' "cago District, that is designed to develop and evaluate nonstructural planning alternatives for the DuPage River Basin, Illinois. _108- vations of flood loss estimates were more complicated and less straightforward. In predominantly residential communities, such as Palatine, Prince George's County, Northampton and Sarasota, average annual residential damages were derived according to a procedure developed 1 by Johnson at the Hydrologic Enginee-ring Center. These derivations required information on the type of residential construction in the hazard area, distribution of these stuctures within the flood- plain of various frequency storms, and the flood hazard factor. These calculations along with other estimates of total average annual damages were used in the development of a complete set of damage data required for the case study areas. Residential damages as derived from Johnson's method were compared with esti- mated damage figures to arrive at allocations of flood losses to other categories. In three case studies, Orleans Parish, Fargo and Wheeling, total average annual damage estimates and the distribution of damages by category in a specific storm event were available. Total damage estimates were adjusted to reflect changes in development between the time of the estimate and existing 1975 conditions. Average annual losses by category were allocated according to their distribution in that known event. Where average annual damage estimates were available 'only for an entire river basin, as in Cranston, Omaha, Harris County and Cape Girardeau, it was necessary to derive damages (subtractive- ly) for the study area alone. Such derivations were based on the ratio of study area losses to total losses in an actual storm event or on the ratio of study area floodplain acreage and deve- 1Hydrologic Engineering Center, Nonstructural. _109- lopment to total floodplain and development, depending on avail- able data. Where average annual damage estimates were available only for portions of the .study area, as ii. *--'ulsa, Bergen County, Wayne Township, Toledo, and Arvada, it was necessary to derive damages (additively) for the entire study area. The given estimates were extrapolated to other portions of the study area based on compari- son of floodplain-acreage and development.in the- different areas. As indicated above, flood loss estimates were sometimes ad- justed to reflect development changes between the time of estimate or actual flood event and 1975 conditions (Palatine, Fargo, Arvada, Bergen County, Westerly, and Toledo). These adjustments were some- times based on calculating per unit or per acre damages from the estimate or storm event and extrapolating these to the number of units or acres developed in 1975. (These per unit figures also had to be adjusted for changes in type of structure developed--if these meant increased value--between the time of the estimate and 1975.) If such specific data were not available, the percent of development'increase or decrease was estimated and the figures Adjusted accordingly. Alternatively, as previously noted, existing residential damages were estimated by Johnson's method and the ratio of existing residential damages to those in the estimate were ap- plied to all categories and the total. In one community, Southampton'Town, New York, damage data were virtually nonexistent. In,this case, damage calculations had to be based'on comparison with the case study community whose flooding characteristics most nearly approximated those of.South- ampton Town, i.e., Westerly.'Rhode Island. Average annual resi- dential damages were calculated on a percent of structural value derived from the Westerly experience (calculations according to the Johnson method are not applicable in a coastal flooding situation). _110- Flood damages in each of the,case study areas-were estimated... on an average annual basis As of 19-75, Total average annual damages were estimated at 76.6 million (Table 14). These damage estimates do not include damages from catastrophic events to pro- perty outside the-100-year floodplain. The two largest communi- ties in terms of land area--Harris County and Orleans Parish (which- include 48 percent of the total'land area)--suffer 65 percent of the-'average annual flood losses. The-other large'study areas in terms of land--Prinde George's County, Tulsa, and Omaha--con" stitute 35 percent of the land area, but experience less than 9 percent of the flood damages. Residential Losses Residential flood losses are the most visible and emotion- charged measure of vulnerability. Average annual losses per dwelling unit at risk in the study communities were estimated at $456; the standard deviation was $436. Arvada has the highest damages per residential unit. Well above.average dwelling unit damages were found in the hurricane-prone communities of Westerly,,, Harris and Prince George's Counties. The lowest per unit average annual damages are for Cape Girardeau ($30) and Cranston ($50).. The relative importance of residential flood damages varied widely from case study to case study. Palatine and Sarasota County have residential losses which account for 95 and 78 percent of the average annual damages, respectively. On the other extreme residential damages.,account for only 3 percent and 10 percent of the total damages in Cape Girardeau and Cranston, respectively. when the entire sample is included, residential damages comprise about half,(52 percent) of the total average annual damages. Business Losses Damage to commercial and industrial occupants were combined,-... under the heading of business. Total annual business losses for IPf 0 R g IFF7 1017 q. W_ LM 0 0 0- rD cm 6M W 0- NJ 0 A. 'm &I - tu, 01 Cc i IJ -j C) co M 0 f C) CP' 0,0 w o- cr, CID 0.0 cc F@ Fj m NJ 0@ FQ w VI ca 0, %0 jb- C: (n rt cc co w 61 %V NJ 6- -.j & v c ^ & 7 1= a, a, @ .9. occoo 0 Or_ CDCOCC 000 rp m as 41 a. C= LM W 01 0 j j t @-n w 40 0 A. PQ Zc W.-,c P-@ J010- 6. 6w ^ & 0 Ic a, 8 K.) - 46 0-- -J 6@ &- CD.& 0 cocco 0 CD 0 Coco CD 0 0 00 W Ln-J C gr@ -0 -V . t-A 6- oot_n 0 @j C) w 0 Cc, C) Pi 6M 6n %0 M LQ 0 Pa F-i Ln the sample were $24.3 million Cabout 32 percent of total damages). The mean average annual damacjes per acre were estimated at $1,830 in 1975. This is only about 15 percent of the per acre loss to residences. Harris County accounts for 60 percent of all the business losses. In terms of damages per acre, the estimates are highest for Arvada ($31,940), Jersey Shore ($12,140), and Northampton ($5,440). Public Losses Public losses in terms of flood damages are made up of at least three distinct categories of losses: 1. Losses to public buildincjs in the 100-year floodplain. 2. Lotses.to transportation, coirmunications, and utilities (TCU). 3. Losses associated with clean-up, repair, and evacuation. Estimates of public damages were available where the Corps of Engineers,had completed an Urban Study or damage survey (Tulsa, wheeling, Jersey Shore, Wayne Township, and Orleans Parish). Differences in the definitions of public losses,and the lack of hard data resulted in a very wide range of per acre estimates for the case study areas. Communities showing heavy per acre damages are Westerly, Wayne Township, Jersey Shore, Savannah, and Omaha. Public losses account for approximately 16 percent of the sample losses. The mean average annual damage for the sample was $520 per acre. Relationship to National Estimates Aggregate average annual damages for,the combined case studies were $76.6 million, excluding agricultural losses. Using the Water Resources Council estimates of current average annual losses, $1,215 million for urban areas, the sample was found to represent 6.30 percent of urban flood losses. 1 1Water Resources Council, Flood Damages, p. Price-- adjusted to 1975 levels using Consumers Price Index, all pric*3. -113- Economic Effects of Existing Regulations Floodplain regulations are in place in essentially all of the case study areas, although not for long periods. Neverthe- less, an effort was made to identify the economic, social and environmental effects which may have already occurred before attempting to project future effects. Information gathered in some case study communities sheds some light on the limited ef- fects of the regulations. The effects considered include: the loss of property value, cost of flood proofing, and the effects of substantial improvement provisions, and reduction in flood- plain housing stock through demolition. Property Values: Developed and Undeveloped Lands In the 21 case study areas, detailed information on indivi- dual property transactions was not collected. However, infor- mation on transactions were solicited from realtors, land developers, bankers and community officials with respect to market property value changes following implementation of flood- plain regulations. In the case study areas loss of market value was seen by county assessors and local realtors to be a function of flood events rather than regulations. The National Association of Realtors recently polled their member boards on the issue of floodplain land values, although the form of the questionnaire could be construed as affecting responses. of those responding, approximately 35 percent (ap- proxinately 12 percent of all the boards) indicated that they believed property values in the 100-year floodplain were affected adversely. 1 These effects reflect, in part, the experience of 1Statement of Albert E. Abrahams, Staff Vice President, National Association of Realtors, cited in Hearings before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Legislative Hearings on S. 1145, 22 April 1977. -114- actual flooding and corroborate the research findings reported by the University of Oregon. 1 One group of those questioned indi- cated that property values within the floodplain area of their locality had dropped between 5 and 10 percent. Actual flooding or identification of an area as flood prone, such as Harris County Texas, had a greater impact on property values than regulations. The influence-of floodplain regulations on market vaiues of floodplain property can be viewed from either the perspective of the effects on developed property or the effects on undeveloped property. With respect to developed property, floodplain regu- lations exist along with many other regulations and codes which relate to the property. The existing structures are "grand- fathered" in (becoming nonconforming uses) and thus do not have to comply with the regulations and codes unless they require sub- stantial improvements. However, the application of substantial improvement regulations to remove nonconforming uses has not been widespread or effective@2 Thus, the effects on the market values of property would be slight. The greatest potential for floodplain regulations to affect the market value of property relates to changes in land use, e.g.r change from undeveloped to developed land or from single family resi- dential uses to higher intensity uses such as shopping centers or high rise apartment buildings. If such desired changes are affected by floodplain regulations, anticipated windfall profits associated with such transactions may not be realized. However, it is impor- tant to note that windfall profits associated with land speculation frequently are not realized independent of any regulations.3 Thus windfall anticipations often are not realistic. 1Warnick, Growth Rates. 2Sheaffer & Roland, Inc., SubstantialImprovement. 3Statement of Mr. Clyde Kautz, President, Kautz and Company Realtors, Glen Ellyn, Illinois. -115- With respect to the tax rolls, undeveloped property is generally assessed at low rates. Thus, there is little relationship between the assessed rate, the actual market value, and the owner's specula- tive or anticipated windfall value. In coastal and some arid area case studies, it was observed that floodplain properties showed strong enhancement value due to local cultural and aesthetic values. This observation is supported by the findings of Kunreuther et al. In their sample of 44 com- rLiunities, the rate by which the value of housing increased was greater in high risk hazard areas (5.23 percent) than in low risk hazard areas (4.58 percent). This supports a hypothesis that in arid areas, coastal areas, and areas without topographical relief, property values vary directly with proximity to vistas of water and nearness to vegetated zones. It also deviates from the find- ings of Warnick which showed that land values in Clakemas County, Oregon floodplains continued to appreciate, albeit at a rate lower 2 than in nonhazard areas. In Tulsa, Oklahoma, flood damages are recognized as a loss of value by the City Assessor. Following a flood event, a tem- porary (one year) tax rate reduction is available to owners of flooded properties. In Tulsa's higher income residential areas,' however, these tax benefits sometimes are turned down because it is feared that a flood record would lower a property's value. In Wayne Township, New Jersey, realtors and bankers stated that, in their experience, there was no difference in value between comparable floodplaih and nonfloodplain properties. Kunreuther et al., Limited Knowledge, Table 9.1. 2Warnick, Growth Rates. -116- In coastal communities (Westerly, Southampton, and Sarasota), land values were not depressed in the designated hazard area. In all of those communities, land values in the floodplain were high, reflecting the premium placed on oceanfront property. Neither floodplain regulations nor past flood events appeared to have lowered the value. In Palatine, Illinois, increased land value occurred as a result of management of open space in regulated floodplains. Resi- dential properties in the nonhazard fringes of floodplains benefit from the aesthetics of managed river and lakefront open space. Values were found to have ranged from $125 per front foot for un- managed floodplain open' space to $300 per front foot for managed floodplain open space. Officials in Prince George's County also recognized this effect. Detailed information on individual property transactions was developed in a research effort by the University of Oregon. , This research compared the assessed value of residential land parcels 1 inside and outside the regulated flood hazard areas. Land par- cels on each side of the flood hazard boundary line on two sites on the Willamette River were compared for a twenty-year period that spanned the years before and after the application of flood- plain regulations. it was found that before regulations were imposed, the land parcels in the flood hazard area appreciated at a more rapid rate than did those outside the flood hazard area. However, after regulations were imposed, this trend ap- peared to reverse and land in the flood hazard area appreciated at a slower rate than land outside the flood hazard area. 1Warnick, Growth Rates. -117- The same research also found that lands in the floodplain had experienced changes in values before floodplain regulations were imposed. ThQse earlier value changes had occurred as a re- sult of actual flooding events where damage to property had de- press,ed values. The lessened rate of appreciation resulting from flood events was greater than that resulting from floodplain regulations. Flood events not only reduced the rate of a'pprecia- tion but actually caused a depreciation in the value of several parcels. Regulations were not seen to have had such a drastic effect. In order to supplement these tentative and sparse findings with more detailed empirical data gathered expressly to examine, the effect of regulations on property values, information on hazard area and nonhazard area property values and transactions was col- lected and analyzed in a special case study in Bergen-County,@New Jersey. Many claims of loss of value had been made And ap roxi- P @ @ mately 850 homeowners had filed for reduced property assessments. sale prices and asking prices are compared in Table' 15. Also compared are sale prices and appraised value. The limited data on these points shows that sellers of floodplain property do not fully achieve what they anticipated; the average sale-pribe was 5 percent less the asking price. When the sale price was compared with a professional appraisal, however, the average seller received a sales price exceeding the appraised value of his home. This em- pirical evidence collected indicated that property values in the 100-year floodplain were not affected adversely by regulations. -118- Table 15: Relationship between Sale Price and Asked Price and Sale Price and Appraised Value for. Exist-ing Property in Regulated Floodplains of Bergen County, New Jersey a @ale Price vs. Asked Price Number of Transactions 18 Selling Price Below Asking Price-- Number 14 Average Reduction (Mean) $ 4,500 Percent of Asking Price 5 Average Selling Price (Mean) $85,200 $.ale Price vs. Appraised Value Number of Transactions 6 Selling Price Above Appraised value 5 Selling Price at Appraised Value 1 Average Increase of Selling Pride Over Appraisal $ 11500 Average Selling Price (Mean) $82,200 Source: Property listings and sales records collected by field team, September 1.977., C)- The data gathered for Bergen indicated there was no signi- ficant inhibition of the marketability of homes in the flood hazard areas. Final selling prices of flood hazard and non- hazard properties were comparable in terms of their sales in- dex ratio (assessed value to sale price). The sales index ratio based on 174 transactions analyzed was essentially the same for both floodplain and nonhazard property. This is significant, for in New Jersey, if the ratio drops below 0.7 a reassessment of property must be undertaken. Also, the information gathered in the field suggested the sale of floodplain properties did not appear to be impeded-by regulations. The transactions studied indicated that the properties subject to regulations have increased invalue at rates equal to, and some- times exceeding, those for other properties in the community Appendix C presents the details on these transactions which took place during a period of intense debate over the potential adverse effect of floodplain regulations. Asking prices were reduced by sellers in both the regulated floodplain and the nonhazard area. The reductions appear to be the same --about 6 percent of original asking price in both groups (see Table 16). Based on the detailed evaluation in Bergen County, it ap- pears that floodplain regulations per se did not produce signi- ficant effects on property values. Also, the sale of floodplain properties did not appear to be impeded. And, persons who claimed that regulations would affect property values were found to be unaware of the range of development options--flood proofing alternatives--open to them under the floodplain regulations. Flood Proofing Costs A special study was conducted as a supplement to this re- search project to investigate the costs involved with flood -120- Table 16: Comparison of the Marketability of Housing in the Floodplain and Nonhazard Areas of Bergen County, New Jersey Hazard Area Nonhazard Area Properties Properties Asking Prices (Northwest Bergen County) Number of Listings 24 210 Reductions- Number 7 (29%) 54 (26%) Average Value (Mean) $ 4,400 $ 6,400 Percent of original Asking Price 6 6 Original Asking Price $71,000 $110,800 Source: Property listings and sales records collected by.field team,,.September 1977. -121- proofing a proposed commercial building at Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania. The costs of constructing a building at grade were compared with constructing the same building using three flood proofing tech- niques: 1) raised on fill (7 feet) to one foot above the 100-year flood: 2) raised on fill (4 feet) and equipped with watertight closures (3 feet) that extend to one foot above the 100-year flood; and 3) raised on columns (12 feet) to 6 feet above the 100-year flood. Flood proofing increased the costs of const-ruction from 6 to 16 percent depnnding on the approach used. The cost increases were compared in Table 17, first to the benefits of reduced flood insurance premiums and second, to the benefits of reduced flood losses including business interruption losses. Flood insurance premiums at actuarial rates were reduced by from 94 to 98 percent and average annual flood losses were reduced by from 85 to 92 percent. The present value of these costs and benefits were then calculated and benefit/cost ratios were derived (see Table 17). For flood proofing costs compared with reduced insurance pre- miums the benefit/cost ratios ranged from 5.96 to 2.31. For flood proofing costs compared with reduced flood losses the benefit/cost ratios ranged from 3.46 to 1.39. The main con- clusion Of the study was that flood proofing of a new commercial building at Jersey Shore,.Penn-sylvani.a-,in. a manner consistent with minimum NFIP regulations is economically justif .ied in terms of reduced insurance premiums, reduced flood losses and reduced disruption. Sheaf fer & Roland, Inc, Feasibility. -122- Table 17: Benefit/Cost Ratios of Alternative Flood Proofing Solutions for a Small Commercial Buildinga ALTERNATIVE FLOOD PROOFING DESIGNS Partially Raised on Fill Wet Raised With Raised Flood b On c Watertight On e Proofing Fill Closuresd Columns Cost of Flood Proofing per Square Foot $2.09 $1.60 $3.97 $3.91 Benefit/Cost Ratiosf 1. Reduction in Annual Insurance Premiums..z- Cost of Flood Proofing 0 5.96 2.31 2.48 2. Reduction in Average Flood Losses - Cost of Flood Proofing 0.25 3.46 1.39 1.53 a Based on a multi-store commercial building of 22,500 sq.ft. proposed in Jersey Shore, PA bAllows entry of flood waters to equalize hydrostatic pressure on both sides of structural walls;does not meet minimum National Flood Insurance Program requlations and can not receive a reduction in flood insurance rates. cRaised on fill 7 ft. to one foot above the 100-year flood dRaised on fill 4 ft., equipped with 3 ft. of watertight enclosures- eRaised on columns 12 ft. (6-ft. above 100-year flood) to accomodate parking fCompared to the basic building without flood proofing Source: Sheaffer & Roland, Inc., Economic Feasibility of Flood Proofing: An Analysis of a Small Commercial Building; prepared for theOffice of Policy Development and Research, 'Department df Housing and Urban Development (1977). -123- Information was also gathered on the costs of flood proofing in the case study areas. In Fargo, North Dakota it was found that the Fargo-Moorhead Home Builder's Association,had recent home construction experience involving flood proofing techniques. Based on data provided by the Association, it was shown that the average cost of flood proofing basements ranges from $350 to $650 and the cost for elevating the housing units on fill or columns ranged from $4,000 to $6,000 for new housing units selling from $36,000 to $75,000 (8 to 11 percent). This shows that the cost of flood proofing a residential structure adds.a comparable percentage to the construction cost as was found with the Jersey Shore commercial structure. In the Fargo area, flood proofing generally results in a increased construction cost equal to about 1) percent. In Wayne Township, New Jersey, existing residences are being raised above the base flood elevations at a cost ranging from $3,QCO to,$5,!'.00 per building. This is less than 10 percent of the market va.-'ue of the structures and corresponds to Johnson's finding that raising an existing home 3 feet imposes a cost equal to 2.1 -[@ercent cf the structure's value. In several case study areas that experience frequent shallow flooding CCranston, Toledo, Palatine, Scottsdale, and Harris County) flood proofiag techniques are incorporated 'into normal building procec-lures. Costs of floodproofing in such instances generally averag-2 fror 2 to 5 percent of construction costs. Inform,-,;tion gathered in the case studies suggests that the Cost of flo(d proofing does not weaken the marketability of housing units. In Orleans Parish., historically buildings have been raised on columns :or protection,from the 40 year flood level. Over 1Hydro-ogic Engineering Center, Nonstructural, p. 24. -124- one half of the City's housing units are provided partial pro- tection in this manner. In coastal areas such as Sarasota, Florida and Westerly, Rhode Island, seasonal beach homes as well as year round housing units and high-rise buildings are elevated. In Wheeling, West Virginia, new housing units on Wheeling Island are being flooded proofed without being required by loca 1 regu- lations. Empirical evidence from the case studies and the special study of the economic feasibility of flood proofing a commercial building in Jersey Shore shows that the cost of raising a new building above the 100-year flood stage is a relatively small 10 percent. Research publishea suosequent to the case study work indicates that the extra cost of elevating a new home 3 feet or less is on the order of 0.5 percent of structural value.1 Based on the information gathered a 10 percent increase in construction costs was assumed for the economic projections in Chapter V. Economic Effects on the C2pn, @nit@ Tax base foregone due to regulations was not found to be a measurable losq in any of the case studies. Floodplain regu- lations in the case study areas did not cause a community to lose its development potential. Community leaders in all but two case studies CJersey Shore and Cape Girardeau) tended to discount the influence of floodplain regulations in their assessments of local economic developmen potential. As evidence they cited the availability of abundant comparable alternative sites for develop- ment within the nonhazard portion of the study areas (about 70.6 percent of the nonhazard area is now undeveloped). Ibid., p. 65. -125- Economic Effects on Existing Structures in terms of existing structures, floodplain regulations, through their'substantial'improvement requirements,were not found to Affect property values. Regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) currently define a substantial improve- ment to an existing structure as any repair, reconstruction, al- teration, or rehabilitation whose value exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement. Upor reaching the 50 percent threshold, the improvement must comply with NFIP regulations Ce.g., flood proofing or elevatingY.' In addition, flood insurance must then be Durchased at actuarial rates to cover the amount ot the mortgage or loan. The reduce(' ri-sk achieved through flood proofing can lower insurance rates to a point where'the savings in premiums offsets the flood proofing costs. A separate study for the FIA, the findings of which are su.mmarized in the following discussion-, was conducted to estimate the number of residential and nonresidential structures which meet the substantial improvement definition. The 126,000 dwelling units that are substantially improved each year represent,only 0.2 percent of the,7,2,6.00,,000 occupied dwelling units reported by the Bureau of Census in 1975. 2 The 13, 600 dwelling -units within .,the hazare! area-comprise only 0.02 percent of the occunied housing units. The 4,600 nonresidential,structures in the floodp lain represent only 0.1 percent of the 4,110,000 establishments re- ported by the Bureau of the Census in 1974. 3 Thus, the numtrar of residential..and nonresidential -structures in the nation's 100-year floodplains that are improved to exceed the 50 percent of market value definition-of substantial improvement activity annually is relatively small. 1Sheaffer & Rola'nd, Inc., Substantial Improvement. 2 Bureau of -Ehe'Census,,Department of Commerce, 1975 Annual Survey of.'Housin'g'. 3Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, County Busi- ness Patterns, 1974. -126- Discussions with planners and zoning and building officials indicate that implementation of the substantial improvement regu- lation was,virtual.ly nonexistant..,, The record of minimal enforce- ment was due in part to political and financial constraints at the local level. However, even if enforcement were 100 percent effective, it is unlikely that the regulation would clear flood- plains of urban development within a reasonable amount of time because of the small number of structures affected annually. Demolitions Another way to affect existing floodplain structures is through demolition. This is a necessary first step in any pro- grammed- land, use change. The demolition of structures is common.' in urban areas. The number of dwelling units authorized for demolition in the nation over the seven year period 1969 through 1975 averaged 132,000, as reported by 'the Census. 1 These demolitions represent the.number of units that@are programmatically removed from the nation's housing stock (e.g.', private changes in land use, urban renewal, planned projects, . and community .development).. In the case study communities, there were an average of 2,400 dwelling units authorized for demolition annually for the. five year period-1971 through 19,75. (This excludes Harris County, Texas for@which no' data were available on the county-.level for unincorporated places.), Dwelling units authorized for demolition in case study communities represent 3..6 percent Of the annual national average., A comparison of residential structures which-would be can- didates for substantial improvements with structures that are slated for demolition@shows an-interesting relationship. There are l3j600 candidate dwelling units in the,.floodp .lain for sub- stantial improvements.and 132,000 dwelling units authorized.for. 1 Bureau of theCensus, Department of Commerce, Construction Reports: Housing Units Authorized for Demolition in Permit Issuing Places, 1971-1975. -127- demolition annually. Therefore, this means that demolition or the natural succession of land use changes as it is currently programmed is the major tool to bring about adjustments in flood- plain occupance. If all candidate housing units for substantial improvement were to be purchased and razed, annual average ap- propriations of $370 million would be required. Summary.of'Case Study Conditions The total floodplain area in the case studies was 19.7 per- cent of the total area of the sample. The sample's floodplains are less intensively developed than the nonhazard areas. Deve- lopment was 17.8 percent in the floodplain and 29.4 outside it. In every developed category of land use but industry,-the intensitl of land use in the floodplain is significantly lower than in the nonhazard area. While residential uses occupied 8.6 percent of the floodplain's area, or only 1.7 percent of the total study area, it contained 13.5 percent of all housing units. Some 53.7 percent of these, or 7.2 percent of all housing, was actually at risk from the 100-year flood in 1975. Density was greater in the floodplain, 5.7 dwellings per acre compared to 4.8 outside the floodplain. Occupants of the flood hazard area exhibited slightly highey dependency characteristics and lower family income traits than their nonhazard area counterparts. On the other hand, the con- centration of renters and minority populations was lower in the floodplain. Compared to the nonhazard areas, the vacancy rate was nearl,@ double in the floodplain due to the generally higher presence of older and more substandard housing. Where housing value data were obtainable it was found that values were in fact lower in riverire -128- floodplains than in the nonhazard areas of riverine communities. In coastal communities that are resort oriented, the opposite was found. Of the $76.6 million average annual urban flood losses.esti- mated for the case study areas, residential losses accounted for 52 percent, commercial and industrial losses accounted for 32 per- cent, and public uses including urban support facilities accounted for the remaining 16 percent. Property values were found to be affected more by flooding than application of regulations. Compliance with floodplain regulations did not appear to be a deterrent to development in .any of the case studies. This finding was confirmed by the in- depth evaluation of property values undertaken in Bergen County, New Jersey. Flood proofing increased commercial construction costs by 6 to 16 percent. This did not reduce the viability of a pro- posed structure because of the reduction in flood losses and in- surance costs. Field work and other information indicate that residential flood proofing, whether retrofit or new construction, is often economically viable. Existing structures are not affected by substantial improve- ment regulations. Programmed changes in land use through.demo-. lition of existing structures affects many more structures-- approximately 10 times the numl?er that could be affected by sub- stantial improvements. The 21 case study areas represent a large proportion of the NFIP flood prone community characteristics. They represent.the following: -129- 2.21 percent of the estimated flood hazard area dwelling units; 1.99 percent of the estimated population of all such flood prone communities;_ 1.37 percent of the delineated floodplains; and in terms of average annual flood losses, the case studies account for 6.30 percent of the nation's average annual flood losses as estimated by the Water Resources Council. With this information on existing conditions in the case study communities as a base, projections of the future effects of regu- lations can be made. This is done in Chapter V. -130- CHAPTER V ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF FLOODPLAIN REGULATION The current economic, social, and -envirorunental conditions in the case study communities form a base from which future short term (1980) and longer term (1990) effects of floodplain regula- tions were estimated. To assess the economic, social, and en- vironmental effects of floodplain regulations, it was necessary to project future populations and land uses which stem from dif- ferent regulatory scenarios and to measure the differences among them. The three regulatory scenarios applied to the selected case studies were presented in Chapter III. They vary with respect to degree of regulation. over land use and building practices and thus will have varying effects on floodplain occupance. The differences in occupance among the scenarios were analyzed to gain insight into several economic, social, and environmental effects. Projections of occupance characteristics for the case study areasstemmed from their own planning and economic forecasts. These forecasts were modified when it was observed that they were not compatible with either national economic, demographic and housing trends or trends within the case study areas themselves. In all case studies, the effects of land @use regulations were quantified to the degree practicable. (The detailed pro- jection procedure was described in Chapter III). Throughout the case study analysis, monetary effects are reported on an average annual basis in constant 1975 dollars. -131- Future Occupance Estimates of future occupance were made for each case study for the alternative regulatory scenarios. The aggregated differences between housing, population and land use were gleanea from these estimates. A brief discussion of the variations found among the scenarios is presentedin the following sections. Housing The summary of housing projections for the aggregated case study communities is presented in Table 18. The projections show the distribution of housing units between the hazard area and the nonhazard area that is achieved by the three regulatory scenarios. Within the hazard area, a distinction was made to show which housing units were at risk, i.e., below the level of the 100-year flood elevation. The number of new units and number of units retired or removed was derived from an analysis of local data and trends. The regional setting for these data was derived from the areawide economic forecasts made by the Bureau of Econo- mic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Without floodplain regulations (Scenario I), the number of housing units at risk would increase from the base of 87,400 to 98,400 in 1980 and 116,500 in 1990. This would constitute a 33 percent increase in housing units at risk over a 15-year period. With moderate regulations (Scenario II), new construction is allowed in most of the floodplain as long as it is -raised above the 100-year flood elevation. Thus, the number of housing units in the floo'dplain would increase. However, the housing units at risk would actually decline by 4.7 percent@because new structures would be elevated and some existing units replaced or retired. In Scenario III, regulations prohibit the construction of new housing units in the floodplain and initiate corrective measures. The number of housing units in the floodplain would -132- Table 18: Projected Housing By Scenario: 1975-1990 a 1975 1980 1990 Base- I II NUMBER OF UNITS Total Study Area 1,207,2.00 1,346,900 1,346,900 1,341,600 1,583,300 1,582,100 1,565,100 Percent Change 11.6 11.6 11.1 31.2 31.1 29.6 Flood Hazard Area 162,800 184,100. 176,300 160,500 219,700 197,900 156,700 Percent Change 13.1 8.3 -1.4 35.0 21.6 -3.7 At-Riskb 87,400 98,400 85,700 85,800 116,500 83,300 83,600 Percent Change 12.9 -1.9 -1.8 33.3 -4.7 -4.3 Non-Hazard Area 1,044,400 1,162,800 1,170,600 1,181,100 1,363,600 1,384,200 1,408,400 Percent Change 11.3 12.1 13.1 30.6 34.9 NEW UNITS Total Study Area 144,400 144,400 140,900 294,400 249,400 237,500 Flood Hazard Area 23,600 15,800 0 39,600 25,600 0 At-Riskb 12,600 0 0 20,500 0 0 Non-Hazard Area 121,700 129,400 139,800 213,200 232,100 239,600 RETIRED UNITS Total Study Area 8,900 8,900 8,800 16,300 16,300 16,100 Flood Hazard Area 2,300 2,400 2,300 4,000 4,000 3,80 At-Riskb 1,600 1,700 1,600 2,400 2,400 2,200 Non-Hazard Area 6,600 6,500 6,500 12,000 12,200 12,200 a- Housing data for 21 case studies. (Bergen and San Diego Counties excluded due to lack of comparable data.) bAt-Risk - subject to 100 year flood elevation (at grade). show a decline of 3.7 percent.by 1990. Also, there would be a de- crease in the number of housing units at risk. The rate of decrease would be slightly slower than what was projected for Scenario II. The reason for this is the inability to change among the various urban land uses because of the prohibition of new structures. Thus, existing structures are not removed unless they are candidates for substantial improvement regulations. in this sense, Scenario III has some effect on the natural progression of land use change which is present in urban areas. The number,of housing units actually situated on the"floodplain increases under Scenario II. This reflects the number of new houses that would be constructed in the floodplain but elevated to the, level-of the 100-year flood. By 1990, the number of new housing units in the floodplain was projected to increase by 35,100-units. Under Scenario III, no new units could be constructed in the flood- plain. The total number of housing units for the aggregate case study communities in 1980 under Scenario I and Scenario II woul d be equal. The 15,800 housing units that are not loca ted in the floodplain in Scenario II would be accommodated in the nonhazard portions of the study areas. In Scenario III, it was estimated that there would be a shift of 5,300 housing units from the case study areas. these units would, however, remain within their respective economic regions. This trend was projected to contin ue for Scenario III so that by 1990, there would be a projected 5 percent shift of new housing units from the case study areas to other areas within the economic region. Essentially the same number of housing units would be at riii- within the 100-year floodp lain under both Scenario II and Scenario, III. As previously stated this reflects both the ability to re- place existing structures with flood proofea structure-s under Scenario II and the interference with the natural succession of housing that would occur under Scenario III. -134- population Population projections closely mirror housing projections. In this study, the trend toward reduced household size was pro- jected to proceed uniformly in both the hazard and nonhazard areas. This trend has a moderating effect on changes in the hazard area population. Table 19 presents a summary of popula- tion projections for the aggregate case studies under the regu- latory scenarios. Jn Scenario I, the floodplain population (as well as housing) is projected to grow at a slightly higher rate than in the non- hazard area. This increase is due, in part, to demand for the aesthetic benefits of coastal proximity (Westerly, Southampton, Sarasota and Toledo) and riverfront access in arid areas or areas without much topographic relief (Savannah, Tulsa, Fargo, Palatine and Arvada). Another factor is the large quantity of available undeveloped land in the floodplain. -,Thu4 the 1990 population of the hazard area would increase by 28.9 percent and the population at risk would increase by 33.3 percent. Under Scenario II the 1990 floodplain population would increase by 1.7.1 percent. However, since new housing conforms to regulations, and some older hous- ing is retired, the population at risk would decrease by 6.9 per- cent. The stringent regulations of Scenario III would result in a drop in both the number of floodplain occ'upants (5.6 percent) and in those at risk (6.6 percent). The most significant.obse.rvation regarding the two regulatory scenarios is that they reduce the population at risk with about equal effectiveness. However, moderate regulations would allow a small increase in the, number of floodplain occupants; while losses due t.o.low.probability. events would be very low, disruption, in terms of access problems, would remain significant, From a social pIerspective,.Scenario III achievesa total reduction in the population that would*be vulnerable to the effects of flooding. -135- Table 19: Projected Population By Scenario: 1975-1990 1975 1980 1990 Base Total Study Area 3,489,200 3,857,100 3,857,300 3,840,900 4,476,700 4,476,600 4,424,600 Percent Change 10.5 10.,5 10.5 28.3 28.3 26.8 Flood Hazard Area 480,500 537,200 513,100 470,200 619,300 562,900 453,700 LO Percent Change 11.8 6.8 -2.1 28.9 17.1 -5.6 a) At-Risk* 265,500 301,100 261,000 261,100 354,000 247,100 247,900 Percent Change 13.4 -1.7 -1.7 33.3 -6.9 -6.6 Non-Hazard Area 3,016,600 3,319,900 3,34 4,200 3,370,700 3,857,400 3,913,700 3,970,900 .Percent Change 10.1 10.9 11.7 27.9 29.7 31.6 Bergen and San Diego Counties not included *At-Risk subject to 100 year flood elevation (at grade) The population growth diverted outside the floodplain by Scenario 11 would be retained within the case study area boundar- ies because there is sufficient available land, For Scenario III, some population would be diverted from the study areas but would be retained within the respective economic regions. This effect compares to that projected for.housing diversion in the previous section. Land Use Floodplain regulations produce a pronounced shift of develop- ment from the floodplain to nonhazard areas that varies directly with regulatory stringency (see Table 20). Scenario II, moderate regulations, would result in the diversion of 33 percent of the development expected to occur by 1990 under the unregulated scen- ario to the nonhazard area. This would'be primarily a result of de- cisions by developers. The remainder would be placed in the floodplain but would not be at risk.because it would be'placed in the floodplain level of the 100-year flood. Scenario III regulations would reduce the acreage of developed land in the floodplain. Some land currently developed would be convert'ed back to open-spac-e uses through the removal of structures requiring substantial improvement. Under Scenario III, the shift of future development from-hhe urban region would be total. Table 20 shows that the undeveloped amount of the hazard area would increase from 273,800 acres (1975) to 274,800 (1990) under Scenario III. This would constitute a net gain in floodplain open space of approximately 0.4 percent, In contrast, an additional 14,200 acres of floodplain open space would be developed in Scenario II by 1990 (a 5.2 percent reduction). In Scenario I, an additional 22,100 floodplain acres would be converted from open space to developed use (a loss of 8.1 percent). -137- Table 20; projected Change in Developed and Undeveloped Land, By Scenario: 1975,1990 1975 1980 1990 DEVELOPED LAND Study Area Acres 458,900 511,300 511,400 508,000 649,600 649,500 641,700 Percent of Study Area 27.1 30.2 30.2 30.0 38.4 38.4 37.9 Percent Changea 11.4 11.4 10.7 41.6 41.6 39.8 Flood Hazard Area Acres 59,300 67,900 64,500 58.9 00 81,400 73,500 58,300 Percent of Flood Hazard Area 17.8 20.4 19.4 17.7 24.4 22.1 17.5 'Percent Changea 14.5 8.8 -0.7 37.2 24.0 -1.6 Non-Hazard Area Acres 399,600 443,400 446,900 449,100 568,200 576,000 583,400 Percent of Non-Hazard Area 29.4 32.6 32.9 33.1 41.8 42.4 43.0 00 Percent Changea 1 11.0 11.8 12.4 42.2 44.1. 46.0 UNDEVELOPED LAND Study Area- Acres . 1,232,300 1,179,900 1,179,900 1,183,200 1,041,600 1,041,700 1,049,500 Percent of Study Area 72.9 69.8 69.8 70.0 61.6 61.6 62.1 Percent Changea -4.3 -4.3 -4.0 -15.5 -15.5 -14.8 Flood Hazard Area Acres 273,800 265,200 268,600 274,200 251,700 259,600 274,800 Percent of Flood Hazard Area 82.2 79.6 80.6 82.3 75.6 77.9 82.5 Percent Changea -3.1 -1.9 0.1 _8!l -5.2 0.4 Non-Hazard Area Acres 958,500 914,700 911,200 909,000 789,900 782,100 774,700 Percent of Non-Hazard Area 70.6 67.4 67.1 66.9 58.2 57.6 57.0 Percent Changea -4.5 -4.9 -5.2 _17.6' -18.4 -19.2 EcQnomic Effects of Projected Occupance The effects of floodplain regulations are most evident in the change in land use and building practices in the floodplain itself. The major economic consequences of land use changes. brought about by floodplain regulations are changes in the level of flood losses and in economic development potential. Flood Losses Without regulation of the hazard area (Scenario I), flood losses were projected to increase at an accelerating rate (see Table 21). Average annual losses by 1980 would be approximately 29 percent higher.than in 1975. By 1990, flood losses were projected to increase by about 71 percent over 1975 estimates. Residential land uses would suffer the largest increase in losses. The projections indicate that moderate regulations would be effective in reducing the loss profile'of.new development. Under moderate regulations, losses would be much lower in any given year than without regulations. Moreover, the expected losses of Scenario I and II.would diverge widely.ovpr time. In 1980 aggre- gate sample losses under the moderate regulations of Scenario II would be some 19 percent lower than the unregulated approach of Scenario I; the differential by 1990 would be 35 percent. If further development and substantial improvement were com- pletely prohibited (Scenario III), there would be absolute decrease in flood losses, By 1980, a slight reduction from 1975 levels would occur (0.2 percent);.,by 1990 it would be 0.6 percent. Given the confidence limits of the data,, one could argue that these reductions might vary in either direction. However, the internal logic'of the scenario dictate Is'that'losses would drop under Scenario III since housing:values-are held constant and the -139- Table 21: Projected Average Annual Flood Losses by Community Sector, By Scenario; 1975-1990 COMMUNITY 1975 1980 1990 SECTOR- Base Residential $ 39,823 $ 53, 785' $40,810 $30,543 $73,823 $43,083 39,102 Percent Change 35.1 2.5 -0.7 85.4 8.2 - 1.8 Business 24,261 29,482 24,992 24,366 38,388 26,147 -24,425 C3 Percent Change 21.5 3.0 0.4 58.2 7.8 0.7 Public 12,489 15,295 13,573 12,527 18,833 15,530 12,561 Percent Change 22.5 8.7 0.3 50.8 24.3 -0.6 TOTAL $76,573 $98, 561 $79,374 $76,439 $131,042 $84,560 $76,088 PERCENT CHANGE 28.7 3.7 -0.2 11.1 10.4 -0.6 (1975 Price Level in thousands) Bergen and San Diego Counties not included due to lack of comparable data. housing stock on the floodplain would be reduced. This reduc- tion results from the gradual corrective actions which would be achieved through the removal of structures requiring substan- tial improvements. The process of removal is slow. A research effort concluded that perfect enforcement of substantial im- provement regulations would affect only 3 percent of theexis- ting floodplain housing units over a ten year period. Estimates of future flood losses were categorized under the headings of residential, business, and public for each scenario. Residential damage projections were based on esti- mates of 1975 flood losses that were adjusted to reflect pro- jected changes in residential floodplain occupance. Flood losses to the new development that would take place under Scenario I were assumed to be the same percentage of the pro- perty value as the 1975 flood losses were. Also increases in the value of residential construction were incorporated in the analysis. In Chapter III, the average annual flood loss per housing unit in the case study communities was estimated to be $430 (see Table 14). When this loss is compared to the average value of a housing unit excluding land (,$22,000 in 1975), it was de- termined.that flood losses constitute about 2 percent of the value of the housing unit. By the same reasoning, new housing units conforming to moderate regulations (raised to the level of the 100-year flood) were estimated to be subjected to average annual losses representing 0.28 percent of structural value. This loss is due, in part, to the residual losses from floods greater than the 100-year event. Thus, average annual losses to a resi- dence which is elevated to the level of the 100-year flood would be only 14 percent of the losses that would be experienced by.a residence that is not raised. 1Sheaffer & Roland, Substantial Improvement, p. 56. -141- over time, as existing,floodplain structures are razed and replaced by more expensive andlelevated structures, the differential in loss per replaced unit between Scenario I and Scenario II will be less than 86 percent,. For example, a $30,000 home experiencing $600 in average.annual losses (2 percent) is replaced by a $50,000 home experiencing $140 in average annual losses (0.28 percent). In such a situation, the reduction in losses would amount to 77 percent. The process of replacement on a lot-by-lot basis would result in such decreased losses per lot until all residences at risk have been replaced. In Scenario II, the average annual flood loss suffered per residential unit was assumed to be 0.28 percent of the structural value of the new development. A portion of-this new construction would take place on lots previously unoccupied. These "original" conforming struc- tures would sustain average annual losses at the rate of 0.28 percent of structural value--the same as for replacement struc- tures. Referring to Table 18 which indicates that retirements are about 20 percent of new. units constructed in the floodplain, and assuming that all retired units are replaced by conforming units of greater value, it is possible to see that losses under Scenario II would continue to increase, but at a lesser rate than under Scenario I. Scenario II would be effective in limiting the increase in expected average annual residential flood losses. By 1990, average annual losses would.increase by only 8.2 percent over 1975 levels under Scenario II compared to an increase of 85.4 percent in Scenario I. Scenario III would reduce absolutely average annual losses by 1.8 percent by 1990. Moderate regu-. lations would slow the rate of increase in residential flood losses, while Scenario III would stop and ultimately reverse the nation's trend of.increasing flood losses. -142- Projections of business flood losses were based on esti- mates of 1975 losses,. adjusted for projected changes in com- mercial and industrial floodplain occupance. The flood losses for new construction under Scenario I were based on 1975 average per acre damage estimates in each case study. The 1975 per acre losses were adjusted to account for increases in construc- tion costs. In most cases, an escalation factor of 25 percent was applied. With respect to Scenario I; new construction would be flood proofed to or above the level of the 100-year flood. In the absence of better data, the same flood loss factor that was developed for residential structures in each com- munity was applied to the new flood proofed commercial and industrial development. Reductions associated with retirements of businesses from the hazard area were based on average per acre business damages in 1975. Where residential flood loss projections were based on current Corps of Engineers estimates which incorporated inflation factors.for future watershed develop- ment, similar adjustments were applied to projections of business losses. A 57.9 percent increase in 1990 average annual business flood losses is projected under Scenario I. The moderate regu- lations under Scenario II would reduce this increase to 7.5 percent. Stringent regulations, Scenario III, would allow no new construction. Thus, under Scenario III the 1990 level of flood losses'would increase only slightly above the 1975 level. Projections of public flood losses were also based on per acre estimates of 1975 losses. In some cases, where substantial increases in occupance of the hazard area and commensurate in- creases in urban infrastructure were projected, losses were pro- -143- jected to increase commensurately (-Scenario I). In Scenario II, where new public buildings would be elevated to or above the level of the 100-year flood, losses would continue to in- crease,reflecting residual losses to the structures and losses to the urban Lifrastructure which would serve development in both the floodplain and the non-hazard area. With no regulations (Scenario Ij the 1990 average annual public losses would increase by 51 percent. The moderate regu- lations of Scenario II would result in an increase in average annual public flood losses of approximately 24 percent. In Scenario III the slight increase in estimated annual losses results from the gradual replacement of the existing urban infrastructure that services the current floodplain develop- ment. The replacement would be more costly. The rate of retirement of buildings that are to be sub- stantially improved would not be affected by Scenario I. Neither would it be affected appreciably under Scenario II. With respect to Scenario III, there would be no repair of substantially damaged property nor would existing property be substantially improved. Therefore, a decline in occupance would take place over time. This decline would be gradual, taking 50 years to remove 15 percent of the existing housing units from the flood". plain if sole reliance was placed on effective enforcement of substantial improvement regulations that included provision for purchase and removal. Another factor which influences flood losses is;@the ex@ treme flood event. Floodplain regulations generally are related to the 100-year flood. Therefore, new development which takes place under Scenario II would not be at risk from the 100-year Sheaffer &. Roland, Substantial Improvement, p. 56. -144- flood, but would still be vulnerable to flooding from events greater than the 100-year flood. The significance of the floodplain beyond the 100-year flood limit has not been re- searched. In the absence of such data, it is necessary to calculate its significance based on several assumptions which build upon fragmentary data. Floods greater than the 100-year event accounted for 61 percent of the nation's reported flood losses from 1959 to 1974. 1 The signif icance of these greater floods can be demonstrated in 62 Appalachian counties where between 1970 and 1976, flood stages at various sites equaled or exceeded the 100-year flood stage. 2 It has been estimated that on'a nationwide basis, the 500-year floodplain is only about 25 percent larger than the 100-year flood plain.3 The losses from floods greater than the 100-year flood would occur both within and.outside the 100-year floodplain. Empirical data is not Available with respect to the distribution of occupance within the 500-year floodplain. They can be estimated however, by making several assumptions wich are supported by empirical data. ToArrive at an estimate of the distribution of flood losses between the 100-year flood- plain and the area outside the 100-year floodplain but within the 500-year floodplain limit the following theoretical calculations were made.' The assumptions are that the 500-year floodplain is 25 percent larger than the 100-year floodplain and that there is uniform distribution of occupance throughout the 500-year floodplain. It also assumes that all of the floods greater than 1 Sheaffer Roland, Mitigation, Table 9., p. 49. 2 Jack Faucett and Associates, Natural Hazards in Appalachia: Executive Summary (Washington, D.C.: Appalachia Regional Com- mission, September 19.771., p. 15. 3 Federal Insurance Administration estimate, 1977. -145- the 100-year events would be 500-year events (although the majority would be smaller). This exercise indicates that losses within the 100-year floodplain would be as follows: a) 40 percent of all losses would occur from floods affecting only the 100-year floodplain; b) assuming a uniform distribution of the losses over the 500-year floodplain, four-fifths, or 48 percent, of the losses from the greater e- vents would occur within the 100-year floodplain (the 25 percent of the 500-year floodplain that is outside the 100-year floodplain constitutes one-fifth of the floodplain); and C) thus, 88 percent of the losses (40 percentplus 48 percent). would occur within the 100-year floodplain, When all the factors which affect losses are considered, it was estimated that the total average annual 1990 fiood losses would increase by 71.1 percent over 1975 levels under Scenario I. In Scenario II, which permits construction of elevated buildings in the floodplain, a significant reduction in flood losses is achieved relative to losses that would be incurred without regulations. This scenario allows losses to increase by 10.4 percent by 1990. This results from losses to existing structures at risk and the losses associated with floods greater than the 100-year event. Only Scenario III regulations result in the immediate and long-term absolute decrease of flood losses. Development Potential Floodplain regulations had been alleged to have the capa- bility to change the economic development potential of a community. A loss of anticipated development and a reduction in the anti- cipated tax revenue in a case study area would indicate such a change. -146- The value of new construction and net demolitions that wou ld occur under each scenario was projected in each case study. Inter-scenario comparisions of the changes in local tax base were then made. The Scenario I tax base in 1980 and 1990 was used as the measure of change in the desired development poten- Under the projected scenarios, floodplain regulations would not result in the significant loss of any anticipated development potential nor would they cause a reduction in tax revenue. Moderate regulations, Scenario II, appear to have the potential to actually enhance the local tax base through increased develop- ment as reflected in flood proofing. Even where the economy is dependent on proximity to the water's edge and/or where there is no alternative means of satis- fying these locational needs within the case study area, the effects on development potential under Scenario III would be small. The rate.of removal of existing structures contemplated under Scenario III would proceed at the rate estimated under the analysis of substantial improvement regulations (3 percent over 10 years). This removal would reduce existing development on the floodplain. However, the remaining development in such a situation will appreciate because of the reduction in supply thereby offsetting what could have been a reduction in the local tax base. It must also be recognized that Scenario III regulations produce economic effects that may be perceived to be undesirable by current owners of undeveloped property. Upzoning to lower intensity of open space uses could cause possible wipeouts of -147- anticipated but as yet unrealized windfall profits. Such speculation is oft en based on the calculated risk that down zoning to high intensity uses can be secured. In this sense Scenario III regulations do not unduly wipeout existing property values. The effects of such speculation wipeouts does not affect the tax bas4 for the anticipated windfalls are not entered on the tax rolls. Social Effects Social effects of floodplain regulations can affect indi- viduals, families, and organized associations of people such as municipalities. This discussion of effects will focus on the nature and degree to which projected alternative regulatory scenarios expose people to flood hazards. There are a number of co-Mple.x methodologies that relate to the social effects of regulations (see Chapter III). However, the detail of data required for such approaches could not be developed within the scope of this research effort. Therefore, a simpler,and more straightforward way olEevaluating the.social effects of floodplain regulations was derived. The approach ui@ad was to determine the number of people that would be at risk as a consequence of each scenario. This approach does not address the types of people or their activities but does provide the basic population .2stima-@es fron, which one could derive some of this information.. The number of floodplain residents at risk from the 100- year flood as currently delineated in t he sample-communities in the unregulated Scenari.o'i is,projected to grow by 33.31 per- cent by 1990 (see Table 19). In contrast., in Scenario II and Scenario III the 1990 population at risk would be reduced by 6.9 and 6.6 percent, respectively. -148- In comparison with Scenario I, under scenarios II and III, residents of the 100-year floodplain of the case study areas will be less threatened and inconvenienced by flooding and will be spared much of the time and expense of clean up as well as the trauma associated with an actual flood event. On the other hand, the moderate regulations under Scenario II do not protect against the failure of the urban infrastructure, the disruptio'n of normal activities, and the physical isolation of households. In addition, the floodplain development under the Scenario II regulations would still be affected by floods greater than the 100-year flood. The condition of exposure.would be changed significantly, however. Flood proofed structures generally would not be exposed to deep flooding. Rather their exposure would be to the difference in depth between the,100-year flood stage and the greater flood. While it is true th-at-the effects of these events will be-lessened, floodplain residents will con- tinue to be periodically inconvenienced. @When a structure is adjusted to reduce,flood losses, theke, is a tendency to overestimate the benefits, e.g., it is assumed that the flood proofed structures are safe from all flooding. There is a significant difference, however, when the residual risk is compared with occupants protected by levees and dams. When a levee or dam fails, the occupant is deluged.with'-the full effects of the flood event. The resident of the flood proofed structure, on the other hand, will experience only the problem resulting from the difference between the 100-year flood.--and the higher flood. Environmental Effects Floodplain regulations,have the potential to affect the environmental quality of an urban area. Prevention of further -149- development of the flood hazard area helps to maintain the water supply, the natural floodplain storage and wildlife benefits of the floodplain ecosystems. As illustrated in Table 20,Scenario I allows the rapid!conversion of floodplain open- space to urban uses. Scenario II slows considerably the conver- sion of floodplain lands to development, thus helping to pre- serve and enhance the natural features of the floodplain. Scenario.III prevents further conversion of floodplains to development and, in fact, begins to recoup urbanized land for open space purposes. While urbanization proceeds throughout-the aggregate study- area under all scenarios, there are differences in development trends:in the floodplain, In both Scenarios I and II, vacant floodplain land is urbanized.' By 1990, in Scenario 1, 22,100 new acres of the floodplain-would be developed. Scenario II would reduce this conversion-to 13,900 acres. In Scenario-III, however, thistrend is reversed; by 1990, developed floodpla.,n' acreage would begin-to revert to open space (see Table 20). Thus, Scenario III alone holds some promise as a corrective approach in already developed floodplains. Environmental effects of floodplain regulations can be discussed in terms of quantity (flood stages) and water quality. This is done in the following"sections. Flood Stages A direct environmental result of floodplain occupance would be an increase in.flood heights.for a,given flood event. Fill in the floodplain to create suitable building sites can both eliminate natural floodplain storage and obstruct flood flows.. When this is done, the elevation of a given flood event canbe _150- raised. Such fills in.natural groundwater recharge areas also have the potential to reduce the..rate,of'replenishment to ground- water supplies thereby diminishing available water supplies. In this context floodplain regulations-as they relate to fills have potential effects on both flood stages and groufidwater supplies. It should be noted that these observations pertainto river- ine areas. The effects of development on the level of flood waters and water supplies in coastal zones-would,be small. How- ever, the salt marshes and barrier beaches of coastal areas would absorb some of the enormous energy of waves driven by storms.. In Scenario I and,to,a.much lesser degree, Scenario II, coastal area development would-destroy and encroach on these ecosystems and itself absorb,the force of storm waves. :Scenario@_ III would prevent the development of these,coastal zones and begin to recapture some of them and their attendant,benefits. Thus, the value of regulations in coastal areas is in,the miti- gation. of damagesand in the preservation of natural@-ecosystems with-their aesthetic, recreational, and. resource values.. Water Quality Floodplain regulations have the potential,to affect water quality. The practice of locating,sewagp treatment and solid waste disposal facilities in "low areas" frequently means flood- plain locations which discharge leachates and other pollutants into waterways. Also, nonpoint sources of pollution associated with floodplain development would have direct access to-the waterways. In addition, such development would aff Iedt low flows in the waterways. The scope-of this study did not permit the quantification of environmental eff .ects-of future flood@lain occupance, 1A.0. Waanien, et al., Flood Prone Areas and Land-Use Planning CSan Francisco: U.S. Geological Survey ProfessioH-al Paper 942, -1977)... _151- The fill and paving associated with floodplain development would affect water quality in two ways. First, they would con- tribute to non point sources of pollution associated with urban stormwater runoff. Second, such fills would restrict inflow into the groundwater reservoir. Since the discharge of ground- water to surface streams constitutes the base flow of many waterways during dry periods, the increased runoff would reduce low flows, the periods of poorest water quality. From another perspective, the sewerage facilities that accompany such urbanization--mains and treatment plants--fre- quently would be overloaded during periods of flooding and would surcharge or bypass pollutants to the waterways. These condi- tions would contribute to water pollution. Also, the location of solid waste or sanitary landfills on floodplains would result in tie discharge of highly-poiluted leachates into waterways while at the same time would encroach on the valley cross sec- tions which would increase up stream flood heights. The further development associated with Scenario I would lead to further deterioration of environmental quality. The regulations associated with Scenario II would tend to stem that tide by preserving some of the existing natural treatment processes of the floodplain ecosystems. Scenario III would both preserve those processes and begin to increase them. Open space programs that preserve and enhance such ecosystems along streams, lakes and drains would help to purify urban runoff and thereby improve water quality. This would be done by the fil- tering actions of the floodplain vegetation'(a process similar to overland flow) and therenovative capacity of marshes and their vegetation tphragmites) which have the capability both to remove nutrients from stream flows and to add oxygen. In addition, Scenario III prevents all new building and filling of the floodplain. Thus, expansions to sewage and solid waste treatment facilities would have to be located outside the floodplain. Recent demonstration projects show the practicabi- lity of areawide land treatment of sewage and alternative means of solid waste management outside the floodplain. 1 Scenario III prohibits new' structures in the flood hazard area. Thus, it can help stimulate new approaches to wastewater management that are encouraged by the Clean Water Act of 1977. 2 This Act en- courages approaches that regard pollutants as resources out-of place to be processed and recyaled. Multipurpose Benefits of Floodplain op@en Sp ce Floodplain open space would provide a number of benefits in urbanized areas. These include preservation of natural flood- plain storage, avoidance of encroachment on valley cross sec- tions, preservation of natural groundwater-recharge,.-maintenance of ecosystems, improvements in water quality, and provision of recreational opportunities. The possible integration of such benefits was outlined by the Secretary of the Army when he observed: Why not use our flood plain in 'Urban areas for crop production, golf course, forests, and other uses which can capitalize on the nutrients in.our. wastewater and provide tertiary waste treatment at the same time? Such land treatment sites can be located on the higher areas 'of the floodplains, but they can also be designed to store flood water when necessary without permitting the'release of; the stored,water except through.the soil filtration proce'ss.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wastewater: Is Muskegon_County's Solution Your Solution? -(Chicago: U.S. EPA, Region V., 1976). 2 Public Law 95-217. 3Chakles R. Ford, "Effect of New Legislation on Management of River Systems", Transactions of the 40th North American Wild- life and Natural Resources Conference C1975). Urban stormwater runoff in.coastal hazard areas and the discharge of sewage effluent produced by the urban areas*affect the coastal ecosystem and their food chain characteristics. Significant effects have strong economic implications for beach activities; commercial fishing, and sport fishing are all de- pendent on clean water. A National Urban Perspective The case study communities selected reflect a range of urban flood situations in the country. Although there may be questions as to its "representativeness" in a formal statistical@ sense, it is a systematic sample that comprises a large sample of the NFIP flood-prone community characteristics. Thus, the case studies can be used to provide some indication of the ef- fects of floodplain regulations on a national basis. To begin to develop this perspective, in 1975 there were,an estimated 162,800 dwelling units (13.5 percent of all dwelling units)in the floodplains of the study communities. of this total, 53.7 percent of them (87.,400 structures) were at risk from the 100-year flood. From a national viewpoint, the data from the Federal Insurance Administration and the Annual Housing Survey were used to estimate the total nuinber of dwelling units in the nation's urban floodplains. An estimated 7.4 million dwelling units are located on the nation's floodplains. However, it is'estimated that only 4.0 million dwelling units are at risk from the 100-year flood (assuming the same percentage at risk as in the case study communities). Thus, the dwellings at risk in the study communities account for 2.21 percent of all dwellings at risk throughout the country. The 1975 population of the sample communities was approxi- mately 3.5 million. This was 1.99 percent of the estimated 175.2 -154- million people living in the communities designated by FIA as having areas of special flood hazard. The aggregate average annual flood damages in 1975, for all study communities is estimated at $76.6 iaillion. This repre- sents 6.30 percent of the nation's $1.2 billion in average annual urban flood losses as estimated by the Water Resources Council. While the sample communities represent about 2 percent of the dwellings and people at risk, they are weighted more heavily toward communities with above average flood losses. Part of the explanation for this is the fact that the sample is also weighted quite heavily toward communities with large floodplains (see Chapter IV) As suggested earlier, one reason for selecting communities with relatively large flood hazard areas with severe flood prob- lems was to,insure that the empirical results reflect the areas in which the effects of floodplain regulations would be most pronounced. This particular sample may be most useful because it reflects urban development pressures throughout the various parts of the nation-. The economic, social, and environmental effects of floodplain regulations are not likely to be great where there is little growth projected for floodplain areas. Keeping these sample characteristics in mind, estimates were generated of the effects of floodplain regulations through- out the nation. These projections are limited to the effects on housing, population, developed acreage, and urban flood losses. The rates of change,for these parameters are identical to and derived directly from those found inaggregate case study area projections. Thus, the dimensions of national changes are presented along with a discussion of the changes in the floodplain's share of housing and developed land uses. This provides some insight, at the national level,into the effects of each scenario. -155- Housing on the basis of the case study findings, floodplain housing units accounted for 13.5 percent of the units in 1975. However, only 7.2 percent of them were at risk. These percentages were applied to the national housing stock figures to arrive at national estimates.. Table 22 extends projected housing for the sample to the nation's urban floodplains. Allowing the market to govern future development without floodplain regulations (Scenario I) would produce a net increase of nearly 2.6 million homes in the floodplain'-by 1990, for a total of 9.9 million units. The number of units that would be subject to risk fromthe 100-year flood would approach 5.3 million, an increase of 1.3 million. Scenario II regulations would allow the housing stock in the floodplain to increase by 1.6 million to 8.9 million in 1990. The number of---units at- risk, however, would decrease,by 185,000 to 3.8 million as a result of compliance with elevation require- ments. In Scenario III, both the total floodplain housing stock and those at risk would.be reduced by 1990. Some 276,000 homes would be removed from the floodplain, leaving a residual of less than 7.1 million. Of the 1975 housing stock at risk, 171,000 would be removed leaving a residual of 3.8 million dwelling units at risk. -156 Table 22: Projected U.S. Urban Floodplain Housing Stock: 1975-1990 Housin2 Units Floodplain At-Risk Percent of Percent of Date Number all Housing Number all Housing 1975 7,356,000 13.5 3,950,000 7.2 1980 Scenario 1 8,320,000 13.7 4,460,000 7.3 Scenario 11 7,967,000 13.1 3,785,000 6.4 Scenario 111 7,523,000 12.o 3,879,000 6.4 1990 Scenario 1 9,931,000 13.9 5,265,000 7.4 Scenario 11 8,945,000 12.5 3,764,000 5.3 Scenario 111 7,083,000 10.0 3,780,000 5.3 Population In 1975, the estimated urban floodplain population for the agrregate case studies was 480,500, or 13.8 'percent of the total study area population. If the study area is taken as 1.99 per- cent of the nation's floodplain population, -therewere 24.1 mil- lion floodplain residents in the nation in 1975. In the sample 55.3 percent of the floodplain occupants, or 265,500 people were found to be at risk from the 100-year flood. Using this same percentage, there were 13.3 millicei at risk nationally. -15-7- Table.123 extends the projections for the case study areas to the nation's urban floodplains. Between 1975 and 1990 under Scenario I, the floodplain population would increase some 7.0 million, or 29 percent. The population at risk also would in- crease by 4.5 million, or 33 percent. Moderate regulations, would allow the floodplain population to grow 4.1 million, or 17 per- cent, while achieving a 925,000 decrease (7 percent) in the population at risk. Scenario III regulations would reduce the actual number of floodplain occupants by 1.3 mi-llion,(6 percent). Also., it would reduce the number of people at risk by about 900,000 (7 percent). Land Use The flood hazard area was 17.8 percent developed in the aggregate study area in 1975. From the case study areas, a national estimate of developed urban floodplain acreage for 1975 of 4.3 million acres was derived. Projections showed that the rate of urbanization in the floodplain declined with the increas- ing stringency of regulations. Extending these results to the nation's urban floodplains, the urbanization of the flood- plain continues unabated under Scenario I, while the rate of increase is slowed by Scenario II and reversed by Scenario III. Table 24 shows that between 1975 and 1990 in Scenario I, an addi- tional 1.6.mil.lion fl.oodplain acres would be developed forlurban purposes. 'In Scenario II an additional 1.0 million acres would be urbanized. In contrast, Scenario III would result in the clearance and retrieval of 69,000 acres for floodplain open space. Another way of viewing this response to regulations is to examine the change in the floodplain's share of total development among the three scenarios. In 1975, the flood hazard area com- prised 12.9 percent of the development in the aggregate study area. Table 24 shows-the relative changes in this statistic _158- Table 23:@ Projected U.S. Urban Floodplain.Population: 1975-19@10 Estimated P02ulation Date Floodplain At Risk 1975 24,146,000 13,342,000 1980 .15,130,000- Scenario 1 26,995,000 Scenario II 25,7B.4,000 13,115,000 Scenario 111 23,628,000 13,121,000 1990 Scenario 1 31,121,000 17,789,000 Scenario 11 28,286,000 12,417,000 Scenario 111 22,799,000 12,457,000 Table 24: Projectad U.S. Urban Floodplain-Developed-Areas: 1975-1990 Developed Floodp lain Acreage As a Percentage Date Acres of Total Development 1975 4,342,000 12.9 1980 Scenario 1 4,972,000 13.3 Scenario 11 4,724,000 12.6 Scenario III 4"F312,000 1990 Scenario 1 5,957,000 12.5 Scenario 11 5,384,000 11.3 Scenario III 4,273,000 9.1 -159- wrought by regulations. Without regulations, the flood hazard area's share of the total urban development increases by.-l.980 and then begins a slight decrease in the percentage of total development. Scenario II shows a larger decline by 1990. Scenario III, however, steadily reduces the floodplain's share of total development. All new development and all substantial improvement candidate structures would be relocated outside the flood hazard area. Flood Losses Aggregate flood losses for the case study areas were esti- mated in 1975 to constitute 6.30 percent of total average annual losses of $1,215 million for U.S. urban areas.1 Future estimates of flood losses for the three scenarios were extrapolated from these data. The results are presented in Table 25 a nd are depicted graphically in Figure 2 (page 21). The table shows a rapid rate of increase for Scenario I. Scenario II would hold the increase in losses to a moderate level, while Scenario III effects would result in an absolute decline in flood losses. Future urban flood loss projections have been made by the Water Resources Council. The Council extrapolates total national .losses to be $3,929 million in 1980 and $4,707 million in 1990 for the "current management"' case; and $3,750 million in 1980 and $4,139 million in 1990 for the "modified central" case. Urban flood losses are projected by the Council to be $1,460 million by 1980 and $1,812 million by 1990 under the "current management" case. Urban flood losses under the "modified central!' case '(one that involves a decisivie shift toward nonstructural policies) are estimated to be $1,330 million by 1980 and $1,483 million by 1990. 1Derived from U;5. Water Resources Council, Flood Damages. -t-160- Table 25: Projected U.S. Average Annual Urban Fl ood Loss-es:.. 1975-1990 (In millions of 1975 dollars) Water Resource Council Explorations National Current modified Date Urban Flood Management Central Losses Case Case 1975 1,125 1,215 1,215 1980 1,460 1,330 Scenario 1 1,564 Scenario 11 1,260 Scenario 111 1,213 1990 1,812 1,483 Scenario 1 2,079 Scenario 11 1,341 Scenario 111 1,208 a-Developed from case study area analysis The two WRC,estimates fall between,the.estimates of Scenario I and II. The WRC's "current management" case,involves the im- plementation of minimum floodplain regulations in a manner ana- logous to current efforts. Its 1980 divergence from the Scenario II estimates is due.to the total compliance.assumed in Scenario II. Through time, the "current management" case produces results that approach Scenario I or no regulations. -161- The "modified central" case more nearly parallels Scenario II. The nonstructural policies embraced in this model assist floodplain regulatory efforts to achieve a degree of hazard mitigation. The average annual urban flood losses for the. "modified central" case are 16% above the Scenario II estimates in 1980. By 1990 there is only a 10% difference. The WRC results corroborate the projections of future urban flood losses developed from the results of the case study areas. InAhis sense, the case study areas can be viewed as a workable depictions of the national urban floodplain scene. National and local policies with respect to flood losses appear to be oriented toward the minimization of losses, not the mere retardation of the rate of increase. If this policy isto be achieved, either Scenario III or Scenario II with corrective elements will need to be applied. The research results show that Scenario II will greatly re- duce the rate of increase of flood losses, but will not produce a decline in such losses. To achieve a decline in the present level of flood losses, a strong national effort must be made to correct past land use decisions that have resulted.in unwise flood- plai.n development. 'This can be achieved through either a modified Scenario II that incorporates effective corrective measures or, Scenario III. Findings Floodplain regulations have the capacity to shift develop- ment from the 100-year floodplain to the area above the 100-year flood elevation. The dimensions of this shift vary with the -162- nature of the regulations. Scenario II(moderate regulations).: causes the shift to be either vertical (elevated buildings) or horizontal beyond the 100-year floodplain. Scenario III(strin- gent)regulations).allows only a horizontal shift. On the other hand, regulations do not prevent urban growth. Desired urban growth could be accommodated in nonhazard areas generally with- in the community and always within the economic region. Housing Between 1975 and 1990, the net increase in dwelling units at risk under Scenario I would increase by one-third. Under Scenario II.during the corresponding period, the number of units at risk (vulnerable to the 100-year flood) would actually decline by nearly 5 percent since all new buildings would comply with elevation regulations and be either elevated on their sites in the floodplain or located beyond the 100-year floodplain. Scenario III would cause the complete transfer outside the floodplain of all the new floodplain housing that is projected for Scenario I; during the same period, the decline in the number of units at risk from the 100-year flood would be similar to that achieved by Scenario II. Only Scenario III can reduce the risk from all flood events as seen by the absolute decline in average annual flood losses it produces. Population Under Scenario I the popualtion at risk would increase by one-third by 1990. Scenario II regulations would cause the new floodplain occupants projected under Scenario I to locate either outside or above the 100-year flood hazard. Occupants of new floodplain housing would not be vulnerable to the 100-year flood and due to the attrition of nonconforming housing, the population at risk would drop by nearly 7 percent. In Scenario III the popu- -163- lation increase would be fully accommodated outside the flood- plain and the decrease in population at risk:would be similar to that achieved in Scenario II. It is important to note that Scenario II and III are about equally-effective in reducing the population at risk from a 100- year flood. However, the number of persons exposed to floods which exceed the level of the 100-year flood under Scenario Ii would be greater because of the vertical elevations within the 100-year floodplain. Thus, the social effects of Scenario II in terms of inconvenience, disruption and trauma that would be encountered when floods occur would be greater. Land Use Without regulations, the rate of urbanization of vacant floodplain land would be greater than in nonhazard areas. With moderate regulations CScenario II) the rate of development in the floodplain would be slowed and some of the development would be shifted outside the floodplain. This chiefly would be due to the transfer outside the floodplain of more than one-third of the residential and commercial development and one-fourth of the industrial development that -would have occurred in the flood- plain under Scenario 1. In Scenario III, there would be a shift of all new development from the.-hazard area and developed flood- plain land slowly would be returned to open space uses. En- viromental quality, in terms of ecosystem management, flood stages, water supply, and water quality would be affected by regulations. The effects would be related to the amount of open space that is preserved or recouped in the floodplain. -164- Flood Losses Without regulations (Scenario I), average annual flood losses were projected to increase by 70 percent between 1975 and 1990. Moderate regulations (Scenario II), which expose new buildings only--to floods more extremethanthe 1.00-year design event, would restrict this increase to 10 percent by 1990. Stringent regulations (Scenario III), which allow no new building and which contain corrective measures that program the removal of nonconforming structures would realize an abso- lute decrease in average annual flood losses of 1 percent by 1990. National Assessment Case study projections were extrapolated to portray future urban floodplain occupance characteristics and flood losses under each scenario. The results are shown in Table 3 (page 19). Scenario I increases population and housing exposure, allows losses to escalate, and contributes to environmental disruption. Scenario III achieves reductions in floodplain occupance and flood losses and is consistent with the intent of the National Flood Insurance Act and Executive Order 11988. Furthermore, it preserves and enhances environmental values with the attendant open space and.recreational benefits. The effects of Scenario II fall in between those of Scenario I and II, but tend towards those of Scenario III. Floodplains can be managed to achieve flood losses. Such management programs were initiated by the Tennessee Valley Authority in the seven valley states in-the mid 19.50s. The -programs went beyond the simple enactment of flood regulations. By providing encouragement and assistance to local governments to guide new development away from.'floodplains, future flood losses were avoided and floodplain open space was pr eserved -165- in harmony with local goals and objectives. Specifically, oppor- tunities were identified and programs formulated to implement them. It appears that if the corrective elements of Scenario III are added to Scenario II, the effects would closely approach those of Scenario II. Such a program would assist communities to achieve their comprehensive community development goals while at the same time to reduce their flood losses. It would also reduce national flood losses, a goal envisioned in Federal flood-related legislation enacted since 1936. _166- GLOS5ARY 100-year floodplain, That part of the natural floodplain subject to inundation by the 100-year flood (a flood event that has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year). Development, Uses of land for@residences (including yards) - mercial and industrial establishments and public and privazt-- institutions, public utilities, transportation facilities (streets, roads, railroads,-and airports), parking..lots, and buildings used for recreation (but not open spaces in parks). Flood Fringe, The portion of the floodplain outside of the flood- way (sometimes referred to as."floodway fringe"). Flood Hazard Area, The same as the 100-year floodplain. Floodplain, The same as the 100-year floodplain. Where a larger floodplain is referred to, it will be noted appropriately. Flood proofing, Adjustments to structures, facilities, sites, and contents whi-r-h are designed or-adapted primarily to reduce flood damages. Floodway, The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacZTnt floodplain areas reserved in an open manner to pro- vide for the discharge of the 100-year flood so the cumulative increase in water surface elevation is limited to no more than one foot. Hazard area, The same as the 100-year floodplain. Housing At Risk, Those housing units situated within the 100-year f loodplaln whose first habitable f loor is at or below the ele- vation of the 100-year flood. NFIP Emergency Program, Refers to the status by which communities participate in the NFIP prior to the existence of flood in- surance study reports and rate-making maps. NFIP Regular Program, Refers to the status by which communities participate in the NFIP following the effective date of a flood insurance study and rlood insurance rate map. Nonhazard Area, The area outside the 100-year floodplain. It includes flood-free areas as well as areas in the natural floodplain subject to inundation by floodwaters from a flood event larger than the 100-year flood. -167- GLOSSARY Ccontinued) Population At Risk, That portion of the population of the 100-year Tn- floodplain habiting housing at risk. Special Flood Hazard Aresj, The 100-year f loodplain. The term has been used nationally by the FIA during recent years. Substantial Improvement, The same as in the NFIP regulations. These regulations require that repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the value of the structure,must comply with the prescribed regulations relating to floodplain building practices (e.g., flood proofing or elevating the structure above the level of the 100-year flood). -168- APPENDIX A JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF EFFECTS OF FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS Judicial Recognition of Effects of Floodplain Regulations As society becomes more aware that land, water and air are not commodities 'that can be abused without long-term and perhaps even ,irreversible negative impacts, State and Federal courts are uphold- ing regulations which even a decade ago would have been struck down. They are broadening their interpretation of public health, safety, and welfare and recognizing an array of public harms which such regulations are seeking to prevent. Testimony presented in these cases is becoming increasingly scientific, and with this improved factual basis, courts are making new decisions which will have wide ranging effects. By floodplain regulation we refer to any array of -techniques designed to keep people away from the water, as contrasted to structural measures (dairs, dikes, levees, seawalls, etc.) designed to keep the water away from people. Floodplain regu- lation techniques include: comprehensive planning; building codes and building permits; floodplain zonin g; subdivision regulations; site plan review; water supply, sewerage, drainage and erosion control regulations; utility location regulation; tidal and fresh water wetlands regulations; environmental regulations; set-back lines; acquisition and relocation. Floodplain regulations are widely accepted as an appropriate exercise of the police power by a duly constituted legislative body. Regulations are presumea to be valid if they: 1. conform to and do not -ex-ceed the authority granted in enabling statutes (generally related to explicit ob- jectives or implicity derived from health, safety and welfare provisions); 2. adhere to the doctrine of reasonableness; i.e., do not unreasonably deprive property owners of all economic benefits; and 3. forbid arbitrary or discriminatory treatment; i.e., require equal treatment for simil arly situated proper-ties. A-1 Economic Effects A basic tension, exists between the rights of the private pro- perty owner to,use his property, unencumbered.by regulation, and the responsibility of all levels of government for the health, safety and well-being of their citizens. As noted in the pre- vious section, landowners bitterly denounce perceived diminution in property y4lues resulting frQm floodpl4in regulations, dovern- ments.are.accused of taking property without just-compensation; ren- dering unmarketable private property located in identified floodways; being forced to sell property or to pay taxes not"c'ommensurate with the use permitted; and incurring increased construction costs that result from such regulations. Change in Value and@Economic' Uses of the Property Being Regu- lated: - The most commo n attack on land use controls is that regu- lations are an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Consti- tution. In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that one of the considerations in decidin g whethera regulation exceeds its constitutional limits is the degre e in which the value of the property has been diminished. InIEuclid v. Ambler, 2'72 U.'S. 365, (1926) the Court was not per- suaded by a value differential, holding that before a zoning regu- lation can be declared .unconstitutional it must be found to be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to public health", safety,'mor -als, or general welfare. Then in 1962 the Court reiterated that there is no set formula to determine where legitimate regulation ends, and taking begins, and that while a comparison of, values before,and after regulation is relevant (citing Pennsylvania Cpal),-it is by no means'conclusive. Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590 ('1962). State courts have universally maintained that the stringency' of regulation must be reasonably related to the severity of the pub- lic harm being mitigated by the regulations. MacGibbon v. Board of Appeals of Duxbury, 356 Mass. 696, 255 N.E. 2nd 347 (1970). After a number of cases across the country found taking to be the issue, in Massachusetts the court held that even a substantial (88 percent) decrease in value.of rezoned property is not a conclusive A-2 argument against the rezoning, Turnpike Realt@ V. Town of Dedham, 362 Mass. 221, 284 N,E. 2nd 891 C19.721.,'cert. identified''409. U.S. 120B. With little fanfare statecourts in Wisconsin and New Hampshire have taken a giant step on the i,ssue of the value of the property being regulated. , Prior courts hAd almost always focused on the market value, that is the "value" of the property as viewed in the real estate market in terms of the profit which can be derived from the land for an individual or small segment of society. These two courts, however, have analyzed the worth of the property in light of what might be called its intrinsic value, based on its role in the ecosystem, related to.its value to society as a whole. In Just v. Marinette County, 56 Wis. 2d 7, 201 N.W. 2d 761 (1972) the court held that an owner has no absolute and unlimited right to change the essentia 1 natural character of his land so as to use it for a purpose for which it is unsuited in its natural state and which injures the rights of others (here, the rights of the vublic to preserve the natural environment and the natural re- lationship between the wetlands and the purity of the water and natural resources). Regarding value, the C ourt pointed out that the alleged depreciation was not based on'the use of the land in its natural state, but on what the land woul d be worth if it could be filled. "While loss of value is to be considered in deter- mining whether 'a restriction is a constructive taking, value based upon changing the character.of the land is not an essential factor or.controlling." (201 N.W. 2d at 771) The New Hampshire court embraced this rationale in Sibson v. State 115 N.H. 124, 336 A.2d 239 (1975), stressing: A-3 VoThe denial.Qf.the permit did not depreciate the yAlue of the mar4hl4pd or cause it to become 'of practically no pecuniary value.1 Its value was the same after the denial of the permit as before And it remained as it had been for millenniums ... (336 A,2d at@ and that no taking had occurred because the denial prevented pub- lic harm (rather than create a public benefit). Under the old Pennsylvania Coal diminution of value test, however, a logical conclusion of the argument above is that since there is no change in value, there is obviously,no diminution in value.in such cir- cumstances, and therefore there is also no taking. Protection of Properties Other Than the Requlated Property: Floodplain controls also affect properties other than regulated .property A few courts have recognized the hazards of floodplain encroachment on other properties. In Turner v. County.of Del Norte, 24 Cal. Rptr. 93 (1972),.the.court stated that the floodplain regu- lations which prohibited further buildings in a subdivision subject to flooding, and permitted only parks, recreation,.and agriculture, were a valid exercise'6f t .he police power. Evidence showed that such buildings would increase flood heights which,could increase the hazard to other buildings outside of the zoned a rea. Other similar examples include temporary moratorium (Cappture Realty Corp. v. Board of Adjustment,,126 N.J. Sup. Ct. 196, 313-A.2d. 624 (1973)), rejection of fill perrhits-(Turnpike IRealty Co. v. Town of Dedham, 362 Mass. 221, 284 N.E. 2d 891 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1208) and denial of building permits (Vagga Properties,, Inc. v. City Coun- cil of Woburnn, 296 N.E. 2d 220 (Mass., Ct. App. 1973),),.where pro- posed construction would affect flood stages upstream, downstream, or on adjacent properties. Higher Cost of Devel02ment Due to Compliance with Regulations: If the property is located in afloodplain zone where, in order to develop, the structure would have to beflood proofed or fill placed on the site to raise it above the regulatory flood level, additional A-4 costs to comply with floodplaih regulations are usually involved. While there are nQ cases As yet specifically testing such building regulations, conceptually they are no different than others which local governments have established in their building codes or sub- division regulations. The necessary expense or loss of value which will be sustained by the property owner as a result of the regula- tions does not invalidate suchregulations, e.g., City of Chicago v. Washington 'Home of Chicago, 289 Ill, 206, 124 N.E. 416 (1919). Loss of Tax Base: - One argument raised in opposition to flood- plain/wetland regulation is that otherwise develor>able land cannot be developed, causing a hardship on the community because of a loss of tax base. No case has been found.to support this view. Instead, courts have enumerated public benefits gained and public harm pre- vented. Even those courts which have struck down regulations have recognized the benefits, but have decided that to obtain such bene- fits, eminent domain rather than police power was the legitimate tool. (State v. Johnson, MacGibbon v. Board of Appeals of Duxbury and Morris County Land Improvement Company v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Township, 537, 193 A.2d, 232 (1963).) There is recognition, on the other hand, that a regulation may protect*the tax base.' (CF., Just v. Marisette County, 56 Wis. 2d P. 201 N.W. 2d 761 (1972); Ca2pture Realty Corp. v. Board of Adjustment 126 N.J. Sup. Ct. 196, 313 A.2d 624 (1973).) Even assuming that regulations do result in a lower assessed .valuatiori for flood@plain properties, there may still not be a tax base loss in totality'for the community. Often there is other land, outside of the flood hazard area but still within the tax jurisdiction, which is better suited for the development. in that case there is no net loss, just a shift to a more appropriate location. A-5 Avoidance of Public Liability: - The finding of public lia- bility in the floodplain has.gene.rally.been in cases where a govern- mental entity has built something which caused damage to private property at times of flooding. fBarr v, Game, Fish and Parks Com- mission, 30 Colo, App. 482, 497 P. 2d 340 C1972). city of Vicks- burg v. Porterfield, 164 Miss, 581, 145 So. 355 (1933). Beckley v. Reclamation Board of State, 2Q5 Cal. App. 2d 734, 23 Cal. Rptr. 428 (1962).) There is as yet no decision that finds a government entity lia- ble for allowing a private structure to be built which causes flood damages to.another's property. Such potential liability is sug- gested, however, in Ca2pture Realty. The most important role of floodplain land may be that of carry- ing floodwaters, especially since the filling or development of such land shifts the burden of carrying floodwaters onto other lands which in the original, natural order of things did not have to function in that role at all. In addition, the pre-regulation market value of property in a hazard area was unrecognized or not widely known. Land may be on a geologic,fault, an old mudslide, or subject to avalanches. When these geologic hazards become widely known, its development potential and its price should decrease, with or with- out regulation. The regulation may simply be a recognition of this unsuitability by the general public. SocialEffects Social effects recognized by the courts relate to protecting the health, safety and welfare of floodplain residence. There is an increasing potential for public liability in the floodplain. With improved meteorological and hydrological informa- tion, the occurrence of-a flood of.a. certain magnitude becomes a statistical probability, and the age-old rationale for negligence A-6 as an it act of God" becomes suspect. As more of the nations flood- ways and flQodplains are mapped, local governments will have diffi- culty pleading that they were ignorant of the dangers when new deve- lopments, which they permitted, are destroyed and lives lost. In regard to existing development in the floodplains, courts are already recognizing that additional filling and development raise flood heights, alter flows, and increase the hazard to the existing deve- lopment. Logically, the next step is likely to be the finding of a local.,government liable for permitting such development when it had knowledge of potential flood hazards. Protection of Lives and Property, Including the Urban Infra- structure: - Developers of floodplains, who may or may not be aware of the risk, are in and out of'the property within a few@years, sel- ling it to unwary.buyers. Encroachment affects other individuals cind the public. The loss of lives and property, of public facili- ties such as utility lines and roads to serve floodplain development, or employment centers closed down because of flood damage, have a detrimental and long-term effect on the community as a whole. Preservation of public health, safety, and welfare is the cor- nerstone for the exercise of police powers. Regulations to minimize threats to public safety enjoy a pre- sumption of constitutionality. Biffer v. City of Chicago, 278 Ill.'562, 116 N.E. 182 (1947).- The Turnpike Realty case recognized that restrictions on land serve to protect those who might choose to develop or occupy the land in spite of the dangers to themselves or their property. In Turner v. County of Del Norte, the court held that where evidence showed a frequency. of flooding which would almost certainly eventually destroy permanent residents and endanger the lives and health of their occupants, such developments can be preventod-by zoning. (_See also Vassa Properties.) A-7 in sj2iegle v. Borough of Beach Haven, 116 N,J. Sup, Ct. 148, 281 A,2d 377 C19.711t the court recognized both-the need to protect the owner from his own folly and the need to protect the public from his indiscretion, I The court stressed the fact that ruptured sewer lines could endanger the borough's entire sewer system, a ruptured water line might result in the municipal tank being drained, and a ruptured gas line would also create a dangerous condition. Road service could not be provided or feasibly maintained over the beach. Under these circumstances, the court upheld the Borough's .prohibition of building seaward of the dune line of the beachfront. Courts are also recognizing the economic realities of floodplain development, with new development placing an additional burden on existing development and on the community as a whole. There is po- tential damage not only to the existing properties, but also to the infrastructure built and maintained with public funds to serve such development. Such development increases the demand for public flood control works, which the Cappture court pointed out would re- sult in public expenditure for the benefit of specific private pro- perty. Preclusion of Need for Public Expenditure for Protective Works and Disaster Relief: As more and more development occurs in the floodplain, the flooding situation is aggravated, and there is clamor to build protective works such as dams, dikes and channels. At least one court has recognized that expending public dollars for such protective works may actually be a subsidy to private development. In Cappture Realty the court upheld a building moratorium until a flood control project could be built, and stated: "Although perhaps unnecessary for this decision, the other side of the coin is often overlooked in analyzing claims by a landowner in a flood area that he should be able to use his land with- out restriction. If private construction would A-.8 call for, or perhaps demand or increase the demand for, public flood control projects, does this not call for an expenditure of public funds for the protection of a speci- fic private property, or purposes?" The Turnpike Realty court upheld the constitutionality of f loodplain regulations which has as a major objective, the protection of the entire community from individual choices of land use which require subsequent public expenditures for public works and disaster relief. Environmental Effects Courts have recognized the natural functions of the floodplain and the problems that arise as a result of their loss. The reduc- tion of storage capacity, groundwater recharge area, water quality, ecosystem quality and recreational areas have economic and social dimensions that transcend the land that is subject to regulation. Preservation of the Flood Carrying Capacity and Storage Capa- City: - A U. S. Supreme Court decision, Chicago & Alton R. E. v. Tranbarger, 238 U.S. 67 (1915), held that an act to Preventrail- road embankments from deflecting surface water from its usual course, thereby injuring the land of another, was a legitimate regulation established under the state's police power. In-City of Welch v. Mitchell, 95 W.Va. 377, 121 S.E. 165 (1924), the court held that the City has the right to set equitable building lines on either side of a creek equidistant from the center in order to prevent obstruction of the flow of the stream. In Vartelas v. Water Resources Commission, 146 Conn. 650, 153 A.2d 822 (1959), the court found the establishment of encroachment lines a valid means of maintaining the capacity of the channel and avoiding raising flood stages. Iowa Natural Resources Council v. Van Zee, 261 Iowa 287, 158 N.W. 2d 111 (1968), also recognizes the importance of this issue. A-9 The@Morris County Land Improvement Company.court recognized the value of preserving swamplan&as A natural stormwater detention basin for waters, but that its preservation could not be accomplished by an exercise of police power. To obtain the public benefit, com- pensation for the land would have to be made. The Vazza Proper- ties court,however, came to a different conclusion, holding that building a large apartment complex and parking area would aggravate � periodic.flooding problem in.hearby residential areas by eliminating � natural soft-peat holding area. Preservation of Groundwater Recharge Area: - Cases in the area of water law have long recognized the hydraulic connection between surface waters and groundwaters, especially in the semi-arid West. In the California case of Miller v. Bay Cities Water Co., 157 Cal. 256,-107 Pac. 115 -(1910), the court permanently enjoined a water. ..Supply corporationfrom building a dam, finding that the plaintiff, an orchard owner, had a right to the continued flows of flood waters to recharge his aquifer; these flood waters were those which could reasonably be anticipated during ordinary seas ons. In Turnpike Realty, the.court upheld the town's ordinance es- tablishing a Flood Plain District as a valid means of preserving and maintaining the groundwater table. Protection of Water Quality: The need to protect the quality of water for-benefic.ia-l-uses. was recognized by the U. S. Supreme Court,,,as early as 1931 in New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336,@ in:which Mr.' Justice Holmes made his oft-quoted statement, "A. river-is more than an,ameni.ty,,it is a treasure." A-major effect.of-building in floodplains and wetlands is the degradat.ion.of,wat.er.qu4lity,and aquatic life due to increased pollution and siltation of the waters. In.Z abel v. Tabb, 430 F. 2d 199 (1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 910, the court ruled that not A-10 only did the federal government have the power tQ prohibit for eco- logical reasons the dredging and filling on private riparian lands submerged in navigable waters, but that the Corps of Engineers was compelled to take such factors into account. To similar effect, the District Court in United States v. Lewis, 355 F.-Supp. 1132 (19731, pointed out that it was necessary to maintain the unrestricted ebb and flow through the network of small tidal streams of the salt water marsh because this had a cleansing effect on plant and animal life in the marshland. This principle is upheld in state courts. In Candlestick Prop., Inc. v. San Francisco Bay C & D Com'n, 11 Cal. App. 3d 557, 89 Cal. Rptr. 897 (1970), the court upheld the denial of a fill ap- plication, citing the state act which stated that further piecemeal filling of the bay may adversely affect the quality of the bay waters @and even the quality of air in the bay area. The Just court based its decision in great part on the preven- tion of future pollution and eradication of present pollution. Re- cognizing the interrelationship between the wetlands and the natural environment of shorelands to the purity of the water, this court reaffirmed that laws to prevent pollution and protect the waters from degradation were valid police-power enactments. Two'years later, in State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 1, 224 N.W. 2d 407 (1974), the same court overturned,the traditional "common enemy" rule whereby a landowner has an unrestricted right to deal with sur- face water on his land as he pleases, regardless of the harm which, he may cause to others. The court overturned this precedent and adopted the "reasonable use" doctrine of surface waters and remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether the conduct of the developer was reasonable. A-11 In Brecciaroli V, Connecti@cut Commr, of Env-. Protection, 168 Conn. 349., 362 A.!2d 948 C1975L, the. cQurt, rulin@ aga@nst a dredge and fill operation, stated that the "evils" of unreasonable pollu- tion, impairment or destruction of the state's natural resources, were proper subjects for'police power regulations. See also Potomac Sand & Gravel Co. V, GoVernor of Maryland, 266 Md. 358, 293 A.2d 241 ('19.72), cert, denied 409 U.S. 1040. Preservation of the Environment: Ecosystems, Natural Resource.s, Habitat, Fish, and the Production of Nutrients: there has been a major turnaroundIn the 1970S by the courts on behalf of the environ- ment. The traditional public health, safety, and welfare focus on man alone has been broadened to include the role of man in the balance of nature. The federal cases which recognize not only the right, but the duty, of the Corps of Engineers to consider eco- logical factors in making decigions on dredge and fill permits are examples of this.' In'United States V. Lewis, 35 5 F. Supp. '151 (1971), the court pointed to the importance' of'the productivity of the marshlands as a primary energy source, providing a basic unit in the food chain of sea animal life. It quoted a report which showed that a Georgia salt marsh can out-perform an average wheat field several-fold in organic production. In Rivers Defense Committee v. Thierman, 380 F. Supp, 91 D.C.N.Y. (1974.), the court found that irreparable injury could occur to spawning and nursery areas for many fish species as a result of fill (see also Zabel v. Tabb, and U.S. v. Joseph C. Moretti, 331 F. Supp. 151 CS.D. Cal. 1971). In Sands Point Harbor, Inc. v Sullivan, 346 A-2d 612 (1975)., the Ndw Jersey court held that regulation of the use of marshes and wetlands which have environmental and ecological importance to the continued existence of species and to mankind is a valid exercise of governmental power. A-12 Conclusions The m9st cQmmon constitutional attack Qn State (or local ,governmentL laws is the prohibition Against taking without just compensation. In upholding such laws, courts couch,their decisions in terms of public harms which are being prevented, rather than public benefits which are being obtained.' Almost any impa'ct can be viewed from either side of the' coin--retaining a wetland can be seen as preventing the loss of a natural resource, or gaining a flood retention pond for the benefit of the general public. Federal laws, on the other hand, are vulnerable to the attack that they are beyond the authoritv granted to Congress in the U. S. Constitution. Once Federal authorityis upheld, such as in the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dredge and fill cases, the courts can cite the public benefits which the law sought to attain. State courts (and Fede- ral courts when acting on State and local regulations) tend to cite benefits to be obtained. In either situation, there is no doubt that the present overall judicial thrust in the United States is to uphold floodplain regulations based on an ever-expanding array of economic, social, and environmental justifications. A-13 I APPENDIX B DETAILED METHODOLOGY Chapter II contained an explanation of the general rationale of and ptocedutes tor conducting empirical research based on a case study approach. It also outlined hovy the literature on effects and their evaluation and measurement was incorporated into the analytical methodology used in this research. Chapter II also presented the rationale and framework for using scenario analysis to project the effects of regulatory alternatives. The detailed presentation of this material can be found in the "Task B Report" of this research which was submitted in Jan- uary 1977. That report comprised the presentation and assessment of the methodologies selected for each major element of the re- search. These included: - identification, classification and screening of effects; - modes of measuring effects; scenario analysis, projection methodology and aggregation of data for their national implica- tions; selection of a representative sample of case study communities; and procedures for conducting case studies, includ- ing survey instruments, data collection formats, and projection of effects formats. The "Task B Report" also contained a detailed review and assess- ment of the literature on evaluating effects that is more detailed than that presented in Chapter II. B-1 APPENDIX C REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS IN THE FLOODPLAINS OF BERGEN COUNTY. i I I I ; The tables that follow are a compilation of a detailed exa- mination of the effects of floodplain regulations on the values of floodplain properties in selected areas in Bergen County, New Jersey. They trace the values of floodplain properties bought and sold between 1974 and 1977. Conclusions are presented in Chapter IV, pages 118-121. Tables C-1 through C-3 list the sales index ratios for flood- plain properties that changed hands in Ridgewood (12 September 1975 through 19 July 1977), Glen Rock (1976 and 1977), and Oradell (1974 through 1977), respectively. A ratio less than 100 indi- cates that the sales price was higher than the assessed value (e.g., a ratio of 70 means the selling price was 30 percent higher than the assessed value). Conversely, a ratio greater than 100 indicates that the sales price was lower than the assessed value. It generally holds that the higher the ratio, the more recent the assessment. Table C-3 shows that selling prices for floodplain properties were substantially higher than assessed values than they were for all properties in the area. This could indicate that selling prices are rising faster in floodplains than in other areas. Table C-4 compares sale prices with original asking price for floodplain properties that'changed hands in Glen Rock for which this information was available. In addition, appraised values (which were calculated independent of any flood hazard or flood regulation factors) are presented where available. These indicate that whereas selling prices were usually below the ori- ginal asking price, they nevertheless were higher than or as high as appraised values. 'Table C,-5 compares original and current (reduced) asking prices for properties on the market in northwest Bergen County. C-1 The identification and inclusion of both hazard and nonhazard area properties allows the reductions in each of these areas to be compared. Thus it can be determined whether reductions in asking prices for floodplain properties are greater than, similar to, or less than reductions for nonhazard area properties for sale. C- Table C-1: SALES INDEX RATIOS FOR RIDGEWOOD FLOOD PLAIN PROPERTIES 1975 SALES DATE PRELIM BLOCK LOT OF SALES 1973 MAP MAP RATIO 1913 1-1 9/12/75 X 73 2803 2 12/23/75 X 60 2905 12 7/10/75 X X 70 2906 13 3/4/75 X X 60 -2906 16 10/29/75 X X 68 2906 18 9/5/75 X X 60 3103 5 3/20/75 X X 69 3102 3 4/30/75 X 57 3102 5 8/12/75@ X 60 3104 2 1/09/75 X 60 3104 4 6/30/75 X 61 3104 33 11/24/75 X 66 3105 21 10/30/75 X 53 3201 42 12/10/75 X X 66 3201 16 6/16/75 X 65 3202 1 7/17/75 1 X 68 3203 6 7/28/75 X X. 65 3204 15 11/7/75 X 56 3405 11 9/13/75 X X 65 3405 18 4/4/75 X X 69 3405 32 10/04/75 X 65 3505 9 4/9/75 X 3505 11 6/25/75 X X 69 3505 27 3/21/75 X X 68 3505 41 7/18/75 X 66 3607 4 6/30/75 X X 73 3607 6 7/15/75 X X 64 3607 24 11/18/75 X X 69 3611 11 5/8/75 X 56 3612 38 10/31/75 X X 62 C-3 Table C-1--Continued 1975 SALES (cont) DATE PRELIM BLOCK LOT OF SALES 1973 MAP MAP RATIO 4004 5 7/15/75 x 66 4004 7 3/15/75 x 64 4014 1 6/30/75 x 80 4015 11 7/12/75 x 58 4105 25 4/24/75 x 58 4106 29 6/30/75 x 102 4107 22 10/27/75 x x 77 4205 17 8/27/75 x x 56 4205 39 11/20/75 x 94 4312 4 1/30/75 x x 71 4312 9 8/26/75 x x 76 4314 2 2/3/75 x x 66 4314 3 5/7/75 x x 61 4315 5 9/12/75 x x 59 4317 5 6/12/75 x x 65 4318 10 5/28/75 x x 67 4404 6 8/19/75 x x 70 4504 13 11/12/75 x 61 4505 1 10/1/75 x 63 4505 34 8/11/75 x 67 4505 34 9/4/75 x 64 4605 9 3/17/75 x 73 4609 3 10/16/75 x 65 4609 7 1/13/75 X. 1 4609 15 10/29/75 x 60 4609 25 5/30/75 x 58 4707 1 9/30/75 x 74 4707 9 6/5/75 x x 74 with 4708 1 x x 4707 11 5/20/75 x x 71 4802 5 7/9/75 x x 81 4906 16 6/24/75 x 62 C-4 Table C-1--C.ontinued 1976 SALES DATE PRELIM BLOCK LOT OF SALES 1973 MAP MAP RATIO 1913 15 1/30/76 x 61 1914 2 8/16/76 x 51 2507 4 2/2/76 x 66 2507 7 7/15/76 x 60 2508 6 7/31/76 x x 53 2508 13 11/3/76 x x 51 2509 3 6/13/76 x 50 2704 7 11/19/76 x 45 2803 7 8/6/76 x 60 2905 17 6/4/76 x x 63 3101 2 8/16/76 x x 59 3103 5 8/3/76 x 54 3104 35 12/10/76 x 58 3106 24 7/26/76 x 60 3201 28 10/14/76 x 55 3203 8 2/27/76 x x 65 3203 10 8/10/76 x x 63 3202 29 8/20/76 x 51 3311 19 4/17/76 x x 75 3505 13 8/30/76 x x 62 3505 35 6/23/76 x 64 3601 14 4/22/76 x 62 3607 9 11/18/76 x x 63 3607 11 2/11/76 x x 54 3607 26 3/12/76 x x 73 3613 8 6/17/76 x @63 4005 28 8/16/76 x 57 4013 10 8/04/76 x 56 4013 11 7/5/76 x 57 4015 8 11/16/76 x 50 4106 7-1 4/1/76 x x 65 C-5 Table C-1--Continued 1976 SALES (cont) DATE PRELIM BLOCK -@LOT- -OF SALES 1973 MAP MAP RATIO 4106 10 1/21/76 x 4106 16 8/12/76 x 65 4106 21 11/1/76 x 43 4106 23 5/18/76 x 64 4106 28 9/15/76 x 62 4107 11 4/26/76 62 4205 15 7/15/76 x x 55 4205 28 9/17/76 x 64 4205 34 10/25/76 x 61 4305. 22 7/15/76 x 59, 4311 9 7/16/76- x 68 4312 7 2/24/76 x x 65 4313 13-1 8/20/76 x 74 4314 5 6/23/76 x x 61 4318 9 8/6/76 X- x 59 4405 17 10/22/76 x x 60 4406 1 7/22/76 x x 64 4406 2 7/22/76 x x 73 4407 2 3/5/76, x 136 4502. 29 2/27/76 x 68 4503 5 7/14/76 x 68 4503 25 11/16/76 x 59, 4504 12 6/18/76 x 69 4504, 18 6/16/76 x 69 4505 10 10/20/76 x x 4505 22 5/28/76 x 54 4609 8 7/2/76 x 56 4707 30 5/12/76 x x 57 C-6 Table C-1--Continued 1977 SALES (map No@ Adapted) DATE PRELIM BLOCK LOT OF DEED 1973 MAP MAP RATIO 1906' 6 3/24/77 x 58 2508 11 2/31/77 x x 63 2905 26 7/18/77 x x 58 3107 18 3/1/77 x x 64 3104 17 7/18/77 x 66 3104 18 /2/77 x 76 3106 25 4/22/77 x 58 3201 6 7/15/71 x x 60 32017 29 6/10/77 x 55 3201 39 4/28/77 x x 69 3201 46 5/27/77 x x 56 3305 4 1/27/77 x x 75 3405 32 3/22/77 x 3505 23 2/23/77 x 59 3607 18 2/16/77 x x 51 3607 40 3/30/77 x x 45 4005 22 6/28/77 x x 57 4015 3 2/19/77 x 62 4106 22 5/17/77 x 56 4205 24 7/18/77 x x 57 4205 35 2/4/77 x 59 4317 4 7/26/77 x x 64, 4318 10 6/29/77 x x 54 4503 24 5/6/77 x 52'' 4503 25 4/6/77 x 59 4504 12 3/8/77 x 62 4505 13 1/20/77 x 60 4605 3 2/7/77 x 50 4705 8 5/27/77 x 60 4802 2 7/19/77 x '71 c-7 .Table.C-2: BOROUGH OF GLEN ROCK FLOOD ZONE SALES 1976 and 1977 1977 BLOCK LOT ADDRESS SALE DATE ASSESSED VALUE SALE PRICE SALES RATIO 33 10 291 Dunham Pl. 4/6/76 $119,600 $115,000 104.00 64 .,,,24/25 225 Boulevard 5/11/76 64,000 63,500 10-0.78 33-@B, 18 373 Dunham Pl. 6/4/76 98,200 95,500 102.83 64 13 175 Boulevard 6/7/76 70,700 77,900 90..77 35 12 25 Diamond Ct. 7/9/76 66,000 95.91 64 2 129 Boulevard 7/29/76 63,300 62,500 101.28 CP 32 13 121 Rutland Rd. 8/3/76 109,200 89,000 122.70. 33-B 22 33,9 Dunham Pl. 8/6/761 110,500 112,000 98.66 64 31 251 Boulevard 10/13/76 53,800 52,000 10.3.46 55 7/8 21 Brook Pl. 10/27/76 63,900 68,000 93.97 6A 155 Boulevard 2/15/77 78,300 71,000 110.28 43 7 18 Concord Ave. 4/28/77 69,500 84,900 81.86 55:- 93 Boulevard 7/20/77 72,900 103,000 70.'78 55 21 111 Boulevard., .7/29/77 6.9,100 81,500 .84.79 97.29 AVEJUiGE Table C-3: FLOODPLAIN SALES IN ORADELL, NEW JERSEY 1974 - 1977 Assessed Selling Date of County @Address Block Lot Value Price Sale Ratio Ratio 949 Amaryllis 245 12-15 67,100 74,000 6-27-74 90.67 109.29 788 Vil'la'ge 161-B 8 51,700 64,000 4-8-74 90.15 109.29 799 Village 161-A 8 64,300 77,000 7-15-74 83.50 109.29 916 Amaryllis 241 d 25-A 59,700 74,000 10-10-74 -80.67 109.29 24.4 29 996 Woodland 254 1 70,000 .97.82 81,500. 10-3-75 85,88 968 Midland 247 52-55. 89,000 101,000 10-7-75 88.11 97.82 952 Woodland 245 78-81 64,700 68,000 6-9-75 95.14 97. 1 82 956 Woodland ---.-'245-- 74-77 -55,600 62 1500" 11-25-75 88.96 ''97 .-82 801 Midland --229 5-10 57,400 61,500 9-12-75 93.33 @93 . 82 731 Park 214 79-81 46,900 54,000 5-23-75 86.85 97.82 685 Blauvelt 2o6-b 11 113,800 130,000 10-2-75 87.53 97.82 153 8A-10 50,400 601@000 2-18-75 84 .00 -97. 82 78.21 Martin., 152 26-29 60,800 64,000 9-24-75 95.00 97.82 276 Essex 152 7-8 40,800 51,000 5-30-75 80.00 97.82 801 Midland 229 5-10 58,900 68,800 10-29-76 85.61 92.04 773' Park 214 58-60 52,500 65,500 10-5-76 80.15 92.04 635 Baluvelt .2H7D 6 - 106,600 112, 500 1-14-76 94.75 92.04 793 Sherwood 160-E 7 56,900 71,500 6-29-76 79.58 92.04 201 Essex 155 17-20 60F800 69,500 7-22-76 87.48 92.04 784 Oradell 229 37-40 59,400 78,000 7-8-77 76.15 88.47 Table C-4: LISTINGS OBTAINED FROM APPRAISER/REALTOR IN GLEN ROCK Appraised Original Community Sales Price Value Asking 654 Brookside, Allendale $ 60,900 $ 57,000 $ 62,900 111 Boulevard, Glen Rock 81,500 97,500 20 Rock Lodge, Sa lle River 295'01000 311,000 728 Lenwook, Ridgewood 63,900 63,00-0 66,900 128 Lakeshore, Oakland 53,500 53,500 204 Sallas Court, Ridgewood 90,000 97,400 114 Roosevelt, Oakland 55,900 57,900 384 Vesta Ct, Ridgewood 61,900 61,000 61,900 68 Trumen, Oakland 58,000 61,900 384 W.Shore Dr., Wyckoff 131,500 128,boo 134,500 76 Island Terrace, Oakland 21,000 21,000 321 Brookside, Allendale 58,450 58,900 37 E. Gl en Ave., Ridgewood 75,000 86,900 224 Burnside, Ridgewood 175,000 175,000 767 Paramus Rd, Paramus 81,000 94,500* 120 W. Oakland,Ave, Oakland 49,900 30,000 131 Bergen Ct, Ridgewood 68,000 69,900 21 Clove Brook Rd, Mahwah 85,000 89,900 26 Twenbrook Ct., Ramsey 93,650 97,900 Busy thorofare C-10 Table C-5: COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND CURRENT ASKING PRICES FOR HAZARD AND NON-HAZARD AREA PROPERTIES IN NORTHWEST BERGEN COUNTY FLOOD PLAIN MAHWAH YES 140 NOT DESIGNATED ORIGINAL CURRENT 128 Ramapo Valley x 54,900 49,900 5710 Airmount x 58,900 56,900 168 Ridge x 69,500. 64,900 6 Karen Dr. x 74,500 72,500 18 Beehive Ct X. 76,900 .74.500 210 Orchard x 84,5bo 83,500 253 Miller Rd. x 110,000 99,900 115 Glasgow Tr x 117,500 112,500 81 Malcolm Rd x 139,000 129,900 (134,500) 54 Vanderbeck Ln x 145,000 138,200 Flammin_q Arrow x 125.000 159,900 RIDGEWOOD 898 Best Ct x 54,100 52,500 4755 Pleasant x 56,000 54,500 1103 Ridgewood x 62,900 59,900 313 Oak x .64,500 60,900 (63,500) (61',900) 571 Grove x 64,900 62,500 432 Stevens @x 65,900--63,900 233 Highwood x 75,900 67,500 334 S. Van Dien x 71,500 69,900 196 W Glen x 74,900 69,900 (72,900_ 529 Jemco x 74,900 72,500 242 N. Pleasant x 81,500 74,500 (79,000) C-11 Table C-5--Continued FLOOD PLAIN YES NO NOT DESIGNATED ORIGINAL CURRENT 418 Van Buren 54,900 - 234 E Glen x 59,900 57,900 (58,500) 305 Eastside x 64,500 59,900 (61,500) 488 Grove x 71,900 68,900 338 James x 69,900 - 379 Queens x 91,500 706 Terhune x 150,000 379 Wastena x 89,900 --86,900 253 Woodside x 103,000 99,900 812 Parsons x 119,500 109,900 (114,900). , 751 Hillcrest x 119,900 115,000 114 Glenwood x 142,500 125,000 (134,500) 850 Parson x 137,500 127,500 701 Howard x 174,500 169,000 244 Lotte x 206,000 189,000 (198,750) HO HO KUS 622 E. Saddle River x 159,900 149,900 119 First x 78,900 75,900 609 Ackerman x 79,900: 77,500 956 Valley Forge x 79,900. 77,900 Valley Stream Ln x 105,000 9,9,900 5 Sargent Rd x 139,500 137,500 215 Wearimus x 250,000 140,000 C-12 Table C-5--Continued FLOOD PLAIN WYCKOFF YES NO NOT DESIGNATED ORIGINAL CURRENT 271 Cedarhili x 79,800 74,900 (77,000) 497 Goffle x 49,900 48,900 476 Lincoln x 69,900 67,500 87 Colgate Rd x 77,900 71,900 (74,900) (73,000) (72,900) 369 Cedarhill x 79,500 77,500 189 Schlena x 89,500 85,000 (86,900) (85,900) 108 Elmwood x 92,900 89,900 760 Hickory'Hill x 125,000 95,000 (105,000) 487 Elegene x 119,900 109,900 44 Ravine x 119,500 109,900 (115,900) (113,900) 40 Edgewood x 115,000 112,000 434 Caldwell 121,900 117,900 269 Wyckoff X. 126,900 119,900 466 Massey Ct X, 127,900 117,700, (125,900) (120,500) Deep Brook Rd x 134,900 129,900 759 Frederick x 179,000 174,900 UPPER SADDLE RIVER 86 Old Stone Church Rd x 129,900 60 Pleasant Ave x 147,500 20 Old Stone Church x 68,900. 10 Old Stone Church x 74,900- 66,900 C-13 Table C-5--Continued FLOOD PLAIN UPPER SADDLE YES NO NOT DESIGNATED ORIGINAL CURRENT RIVER (cont) 87 Pleasant X 97,500 92,500 44 Timberlane X 99,500 93,900 6 Hidden Glen X 98,000 94,900 51 Old Stone Church X 94,900 23 Sleepy Hollow X 115,000 109,000 39 Cherry Lane X 119,500 112,500 3 Winding Way X 118,000 115,000 53 Skyline Dr X 127,500 122,500 39 Cider Hill X 132',900 124,900 (129,900) 31 Rambling Brook X 139,900 129,900 39 Timberlane X 139,900 134,500 66 Old Stone X 148,000 139,900 Church (142,500) 27 Cider Hill X 159,900 154,900 6 Valley Lane X 167,900 157,900 37 Sunrise X 199,000 192,500 (198,000) (196,000) (195,000) (194,000) 45 Hillcrest X 212,750 199,000 6 Stonegate X 215,000 199,000 SADDLE RIVER 277 Mill Rd- X 159,900 149,750 (154,900) 42 Woodcliffe X 194,900 179,500 Lake 101 Fox.,Hedge X 299,900 310,000 14 E Saddle River X 395,000 350,000 Rd C-14 Table C-5--Continued ,FLOOD PLAIN OAKLAND YES NO NOT DESIGNATED ORIGINAL CURRENT 6 A Riverside X 11,900 6 Riverside Dr X '12,800 11,500 49 Island Terr. X 18,500 *21,500@ 9 Riverside X 28,000 - 69 Island Terr. X 35,000 - 37,000 - 23 Acorn X 36 A & 36 B X 38,500. - Riverside (2 houses) 51 Lakeview X 39,900 - 33 River Rd X 47,900 42,900 (45,900) 7 Hillside X 44,900 38 & 40 River X 49,900 - side (2 houses) 155 Franklin X 51,900 48,500 (49,900) 31 Walnut X 54,900 53,000 31 Minnehaha X 55,900 53,500 50 Sioux X 58,000 53,900 23 Rockaway X 54,900 - 93 Roosevelt X 58,500 54,900 (56,500) 26 Sioux X 59,000 56,000 (57,000) 18010 Oakland X 61,900 57,900 (59,900) 416 Powder Mill X 61,900 59,900 100 Truman X 63,900 60,900 (61,900) 12 Hawatha X 61,900 60,900 84 Grove X 64,900 62,900 (63,400) 20 Loyola X 65,900 63,900 Pool Hallow Rd X 99,900 87,000 (92,500) 3 Pequot X 125,000 117,000 C-15 -U.S. GOVER@NENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981-0-725-234/1052 DATE DUE GAYLORDiNo. 2333 PRINTED IN U.S.A, 66-68 14106 9791