Laserfiche WebLink
Memorandum <br />Page 2 <br />August 6, 1997 <br /> <br />The County's responses must fail within our authority and must be applied carefully to <br />recognize the broad impact of our actions. This means actions taken by Cabarrus County <br />must be analyzed for impact both up and down stream of our areas of concern <br /> <br />Somehow, although very difficult to address on a personal basis, some attention must be paid <br />to the cost-benefit ratio of either further regulation of development or implementation of <br />some form of capital improvements program designed to address the physical aspects of <br />flooding. <br /> <br />Finally, the role of all levels of government (Federal, State, locai and regional) must be <br />observed, recognized and accepted in the process. No "one" level either can accept total <br />responsibility for the outcomes or costs of dealing with the flooding issues. <br /> <br />County Government Options <br /> <br />(Please understand that each option detailed will require substantial research, validation and if <br />pursued, a cost-benefit analysis regarding implementation.) <br /> <br />Regulatory Actions <br /> <br />Further regulation and restriction of construction within flood prone areas are possible. This action <br />could include: <br /> <br />Prohibition of any structures in flood prone areas (one clearly identified). <br />Establishment of extensive regulations designed to evaluate flood prone areas to require <br />detention, retention or possibly both for developments within a specific area that is partially <br />or closely impacted either by or upon flood prone areas. <br />Regulation of individual lot runoffactivities within new subdivisions to require an established <br />level ofrunoffcreated by rooftops, driveways, etc. to be retained on an individuai lot. <br />Creation ora requirement that every development provide an analysis of storm water impact, <br />including measures to regulate the run off.from each project so as not to add either volume <br />or speed to water leaving a development and following natural flow patterns. <br />Requirements for larger diameter/volume capacity drainage facilities within developments <br />(i.e., road culverts, bridges and such). <br />A first step was developed in the 1997-98 budget process for the County to assume erosion <br />and sedimentation control responsibility from the State for our area. This approach is being <br />addressed under separate action before the Board of County Commissioners. <br />Other restrictions that could have positive impacts on the direction and volume of storm <br />water run off. <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br /> <br />