Premium
Nonstructural measures for flood control
Author(s) -
James L. Douglas
Publication year - 1965
Publication title -
water resources research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.863
H-Index - 217
eISSN - 1944-7973
pISSN - 0043-1397
DOI - 10.1029/wr001i001p00009
Subject(s) - flood myth , flood control , damages , flooding (psychology) , watershed , measure (data warehouse) , control (management) , environmental science , plan (archaeology) , computer science , water resource management , civil engineering , engineering , geography , data mining , archaeology , artificial intelligence , psychology , machine learning , political science , law , psychotherapist
A workable procedure is devised for incorporating optimal amounts of nonstructural measures in flood‐control planning, determining proper project timing, and providing review as new developments unfold. Optimality is based on the economic efficiency criterion, or minimizing the sum of the four flood control cost components: flood damage, structural measure cost, the cost of floodproofmg, and the cost of land use adjustment. Optimum timing is estimated by minimizing independently the total cost in successive 10‐year stages. Periodic review is obtained as the plan for each upcoming stage is reviewed before it is applied. The technique was used to analyze a small watershed in Sacramento County, California, and it produced a flood‐control program significantly less costly than that obtained by current procedures. Structural measures for flood control were found most applicable at the two extremes of extensive agricultural or urban damages. Nonstructural measures were favored in situations involving rapidly expanding urban development suffering fairly frequent flooding or unusually costly structural measure construction. Residual flood damages were found to increase with time even after the optimum combination of structural and nonstructural measures was applied.