Many questions demand answering but one thing is clear: the provincial government, together with the municipalities, needs to take much more serious steps than it has in the past to implement both flood minimization and
flood damage mitigation strategies.
Indeed the 2006 report itself acknowledges that the committee led by Groeneveld left significant matters unexamined even taking only
flood damage mitigation into account.
As many people now know from recent media reports,
flood damage mitigation was addressed by a provincial government committee set up after the 2005 floods.
Not exact matches
Many people are writing about the need to limit new development in
flood plains after the 2013
flood but that speaks only to the
damage mitigation side.
So right away we can see that the committee's work could never have been sufficient to the task at hand, for the challenge is not just
mitigation of
damage but minimization of the likelihood and scale of the
flooding itself.
Counties, cities, towns, villages and special districts that sustained direct physical
flood - related
damage are eligible to receive up to $ 1,000,000 for repairs to and restoration of municipal infrastructure and systems and up to $ 500,000 for
flood mitigation, construction of resiliency measures, or
flood control projects.
The bill also establishes a fund for local governments to invest in future
flood control and
mitigation projects, and it allows some
damaged properties to get tax assessment reductions.
The program consists of two components: $ 21 million through the Business
Flood Recovery Grant Program to be directed to eligible entities that sustained direct, physical
flood - related
damage and $ 9 million through the
Flood Mitigation Grant Program to be used to support flood mitigation or flood control projects in waterways impacted by the record - breaki
Mitigation Grant Program to be used to support
flood mitigation or flood control projects in waterways impacted by the record - breaki
mitigation or
flood control projects in waterways impacted by the record - breaking storms.
We do not need less dialogue, we need more, centring on the question of how we should best prepare for extreme
flooding in the future»; they propose that, in future,
flood mitigation measures should be based on four pillars to keep
damage levels as low as possible and to distribute the burden fairly:
«Mandatory insurance for all home - owners would reassign the costs for
damage within a framework of solidarity, while the premium rebates would create economic incentive for private
mitigation measures to tackle elementary
damage such as
flooding, severe rainfall and snow pressure,» prompts Prof. Reimund Schwarze from UFZ as food for thought.
In this, a carefully structured, mandatory insurance can assign the costs of actual
damage in such a way that the economic incentives for
mitigation measures against
flooding and heavy rainfall are not lost.
Nevertheless, even a combination of technical, natural and private
mitigation to protect against
flooding will not succeed in preventing all
damage — «residual risks» remain.
Furthermore, private
mitigation should be supported wherever technical
flood protection has so far been unable to provide sufficient protection against
damage.
NFIP currently assesses
flood risk in terms of the probability and depth of
flooding, the economic value of the assets subject to
damage, the vulnerability of the structure, and the performance of
flood protection and
mitigation measures.
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) FMA provides funds on an annual basis so that measures can be taken to reduce or eliminate risk of
flood damage to buildings insured under the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
If you are already living in a designated
flood zone, look at
mitigation efforts that can reduce your risk of
flood damage and consider purchasing
flood insurance.
In exchange, communities gain access to
flood maps,
mitigation assistance and subsidized insurance to prepay for future
damage and recover more quickly from
flooding.