Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T17:20:48.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Floodplain Management: A Flood and Land Planning System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Maurice D. Arnold
Maurice D. Arnold
Affiliation:
Land Management Consultant; Member, Natural Resources Committee, Vermont House of Representatives; Vice-Chairman, Otter Creek Natural Resource Conservation District, Vermont; formerly U.S. Department of the Interior; Box 95, Whiting, Vermont 05778, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The trauma and loss which we experience from flooding is a measure of the effectiveness of a society's leaders, for the results of land and flood management configurations can be predicted. Floodplain Management (FM) is the only approach that can control excessive runoff and tides in the long term. It is a system for turning flood-plains to needed uses— ‘open’ uses such as farms and parks—and for either floodproofing buildings in flood zones or keeping them out of the floodplain.

FM tends in most situations, and indeed in general, to be more economic and less socially costly than other flood-management formats. It allows lands to play more appropriate roles, generally does not fight natural water-cycles, decreases at-risk populations, deals effectively with flood hazards, tends not to destabilize soil and biological systems, and does not require great commitments to maintain.

Unfortunately the structural approach is often preferred, and an important, perhaps pivoting, reason is that it is part of a system of largess used by governmental leaders to aid financial constituencies. Political reform is accordingly required.

FM tools include citizen intervention; regulation; property rights purchase; flood-control structures; relocation of settlements; weather forecasting, warning, and modification; governmental loan and guarantee activities; government flood insurance; private and governmental disaster aid; banking regulations; farm preservation, erosion control, and water-quality management; parks, refuges, scenic streams, and open spaces; coordination of ‘delivery’ of services; trust, cooperative, and other private arrangements; legal redress; and special planning and executive devices, each of which is considered briefly.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Summer 1981 , pp. 97 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arnold, Maurice D. (1975). Floods as Man-made disasters. Environmental Conservation, 2(4), pp. 257–63, 9 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aron, Joan B. (1979). Citizen participation at Government expense. Public Administration Review, 39(5), pp. 477–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, Norman G. & Weithman, A. Stephen ( 1978). Impacts of Stream Channelization—A Summary of Studies Sponsored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Stream Alteration Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, Missouri: xi + 57 pp. (mimeogr.).Google Scholar
Comptroller General of the United States (1976). Formidable Administrative Problems Challenge Achieving National Flood Insurance Program Objectives. Report to the Congress, General Accounting Office, Washington D.C.: 81 pp.Google Scholar
Comptroller General of the United States (1978). The Johnstown Area Flood of 1977: A Case Study for the Future. A Report of the Comptroller of the United States, General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.: 70 pp.Google Scholar
Doxiadis, C. A. & Papaioannou, J. G. (1972). The Concept of Ecumenopolis. Ekistics, 33 (199), pp. 428–9.Google Scholar
Goddard, James E. (1961). The Cooperative Program in the Tennessee Valley. Pp. 148–68 in Papers on Flood Problems. Research Paper No. 70, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois: 240 pp.Google Scholar
Mileti, Dennis S., with Drabek, Thomas E. & Haas, J. Eugene (1975). Human Systems in Extreme Environments: A Sociological Perspective. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado: vii + 165 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Mussari, Anthony J. (1974). Appointment With Disaster: The Swelling of a Flood. Northeast Publishers, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania: xviii + 158 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Schneider, William J. & Goddard, James E. (1974). Extent and Development of Urban Flood Plains. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: Circular 601-J, vii + 14 pp., illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sewell, W. R. Derrick (1973). Flood Damage Prevention Planning in Developing Countries. Paper prepared for the U.N. Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Flood Damage Prevention, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C., Canada: iv + 137 pp. (mimeogr.).Google Scholar
Taylor, Gerald G. [1976]. Ecological Aspects of Stream Alterations. Excerpted from the presentation to the Seminar on ‘River: Who Gets What, When and Why?’ at the University of Connecticut, 15 Sept. 1976. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts: 36 pp. (mimeogr., undated).Google Scholar
U.S. Congress House Committee on Government Operations (1971). Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Conservation of Natural Resources, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, Part 1. Washington, D.C.: 388 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress House Committee on Government Operations (1973). Stream Channelization: What Federally Financed Draglines and Bulldozers do to Our Nation's Streams. House Report No. 93–530, Washington, D.C.: 139 pp.Google Scholar
U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (1978). Our Nation's Wetlands. An Interagency Task Force Report. Participants: Departments of the Army, Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior, and Environmental Protection Agency. Written by Horwitz, Elinor Lander. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.: v + 70 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (1978). Office of Federal Disaster Assistance Administration. Pp. 1–3 in Disaster Information, 12 1978, Washington D. C.: 4 pp.Google Scholar
U.S. Water Resources Council (1978). Floodplain Management Guidelines. Reprint of 43 FR 6030 of 10 02 1978, Washington, DC: 52 pp.Google Scholar
White, Gilbert F., Akin, Wallace E., Berry, Brian J. L., Burton, Ian, Dougal, Merwin D., Goddard, James E., Hertzler, R. A., Holmes, Roland C., Kates, Robert W., Renshaw, Edward F., Roder, Wolf & Sheaffer, John R. (1961). Papers on Flood Problems. Research Paper No. 70, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois: vi + 240 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
White, Gilbert F., Brinkman, Waltraud A. R., Cochrane, Harold C. & Eriksen, Neil J. (1975). Flood Hazards in the United States: A Research Assessment. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado: 141 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
White, Theodore H. (1978). In Search of History. Harper & Row, New York, N.Y.: 561 pp.Google Scholar
Wilcox, William H. (1978). FDAA Prospective. Natural Hazards Observer (Boulder,1 Colorado), 2(4), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar