FLOOD-DAMAGE MITIGATION
The commonly accepted measures for reducing flood damage are as follows:
Reduction of peak flow by reservoirs.
Confinement of the flow within a predetermined channel by levees, flood walls, or
a closed conduit.
Reduction of peak stage by increased velocities resulting from channel
improvement.
Diversion of floodwaters through a flood bypass, which may return the water to
the same channel at a point downstream or deliver it to another channel or
different watershed.
Floodproofing of specific properties.
Reduction of flood runoff by land management.
Temporary evacuation of flood threatened areas on the basis of flood warnings.
Flood plain management.
Flood-mitigation projects often utilize a combination of these measures.
The Public View of Flood Mitigation
It is not unusual for a new flood-mitigation project to be described as one that
will “prevent floods for all time”. This thought is a sedative that can lull the
public to sleep behind inadequate protection, and their awakening may come too
late to minimize the damage.
The physical facts of most flooding situations are against the planner who
attempts to provide absolute flood control, and talk of “adequate protection” can
imply no more than a calculated risk. In the hydrologic study, in particular, every
possible effort should be made to minimize the uncertainty in the flood frequency
estimates.
In the design of a flood control project it would of course be desirable to provide
protection against the maximum probable flood, if this were feasible within
acceptable limits of cost. However, it is seldom practicable to provide absolute
flood protection. Some risk must be accepted in the selection of a design flood
discharge. A decision as to how much risk should be accepted in each case is of
utmost importance and should be based on careful consideration of flood
characteristics and potentialities in the basin, the class of area to be protected, and
economic limitations.
The standard project flood is intended as a practicable expression of the degree of
protection that should be sought as a general rule in the design of flood control
works for communities where protection of human life and unusually high value
property is involved. In as much as standard project flood estimates are to be
based on generalized studies of meteorologic and hydrologic conditions in a
region, the standard project flood estimate provides a basis for comparing the
degree of protection provided by a flood control project in different localities, thus
promoting a more consistent policy with respect to selection of design floods
giving a comparable degree of protection for similar classes of properties.
The standard project flood is usually determined by transposing the largest
rainstorm observed in the region surrounding the project and converting the storm
to flow by use of a rainfall-runoff relation and unit hydrograph. Thus the
probability of the resulting flow is unknown and the standard project flood does
not really serve the purpose of providing a comparable basis of design for projects
in different regions.
Actually, flood-mitigation projects should not be constrained to a single flood
event as the design standard. In considering the effectiveness of a flood-mitigation
project, its impact on flood damage and loss of life over the entire spectrum of
possible floods should be evaluated, and the “design flood” or the maximum flood
against which the project is expected to be fully effective selected on the basis of
all relevant social, economic, and environmental factors.
FLOOD-MITIGATION RESERVOIRS
There are two basic types of flood-mitigation reservoirs - storage reservoirs and
retarding basins - differing only in the type of outlet works provided. The
discharge from a storage reservoir is regulated by gates and valves operated on the
basis of the judgement of the project engineer. Storage reservoirs for flood
mitigation differ from conservation reservoirs only in the need for a large
sluiceway capacity to permit rapid drawdown in advance of or after a flood.
Retarding basins, on the other hand, are provided with fixed, ungated outlets that
automatically regulate the outflow in accordance with the volume of water in
storage. Storage reservoirs are much more common than retarding basins.
Purpose of Flood-Mitigation Reservoirs
The function of a flood-mitigation reservoir is to store a portion of the flood flow
so as to minimize the flood peak at the point to be protected. In an ideal case, the
reservoir is situated immediately upstream from the protected area and is operated
to “cut off” the flood peak. This is accomplished by discharging all reservoir
inflow until the outflow reaches the safe capacity of the channel downstream. All
flow above this rate is stored until inflow drops below the safe channel capacity,
and the stored water is released to recover storage capacity for the next flood.
Since the reservoir is situated immediately upstream from the point to be
protected, the hydrograph at that point is the same as that released at the dam, and
the peak has been reduced.
If there is a substantial local inflow between the dam and the control point, the
reservoir must be operated to produce a minimum peak at the protected area rather
than a minimum peak at the dam. If, as is the usual case, the local inflow crests
sooner than the inflow from upstream, the operation usually requires low releases
early in the flood, with relatively higher releases timed to arrive after the peak of
the local inflow.
Location of Reservoirs
The most effective flood mitigation is obtained from an adequate reservoir
located immediately upstream from the point (or reach) to be protected. Sites
farther upstream require smaller dams and less valuable land but are less effective
in reducing flood peaks. The loss in effectiveness results from the influence of
channel storage and from the lack of control over the local inflow between the
reservoir and the protected city. A single reservoir cannot give equal protection to
a number cities located at differing distances downstream. A significant, although
largely qualitative, criterion for evaluating a flood-mitigation reservoir or a system
of reservoirs is the percentage of the total drainage area controlled by the
reservoirs.
Economic analysis and other factors often favor the upstream site despite its
lesser effectiveness. Often several small reservoirs are indicted in preference to a
single large reservoir. No general rules can be set forth because each problem is
unique, and several alternatives must be evaluated. The use of several small
reservoirs offers the possibility of developing initially only those units of the
system that yield the highest economic return and constructing the additional units
as the development of the area increases the potential benefits.
Size of Reservoir
The potential reduction in peak flow by reservoir operation increases as reservoir
capacity increases, since a greater portion of the floodwater can be stored. For this
reason a second criterion for evaluation of a flood-mitigation reservoir is its
storage capacity, usually expressed in inches (or millimeters) of runoff from its
tributary drainage area. If this value is compared with the possible storm rainfall
over the area, one obtains a rough idea of the potential effectiveness.
Operational Problems
The idealized reservoir operation can be determined by limiting downstream
channel capacity. Streamflow forecasts are necessary in planning reservoir
operations for flood mitigation. A flood-mitigation reservoir has its maximum
potential for flood reduction when it is empty. After a flood has occurred, a
portion of the flood-mitigation storage is occupied by the collected floodwaters
and is not available for use until this water can be released. A second storm may
occur before the drawdown is complete. Consequently, it is often necessary to
reserve a portion of the storage capacity as protection against a second flood, i.e.,
the full capacity of the reservoir cannot be assumed to be available for the control
of any single flood. If a second flood should occur while the reservoir is full, the
effect of the reservoir might be to make this flood worse. These two effects –
uncertainty as to future inflows during the flood and the need to reserve storage
against a possible second flood – mean that a flood-mitigation reservoir cannot be
fully effective.
A third operational problem develops when flows in excess of natural flows are
released from a reservoir and synchronize at some point downstream with flood
flows from a tributary. The resulting flows below this tributary may be greater
than the natural flood flows would have been. This situation has occurred many
times and is one of the hazards of flood-mitigation operation, especially on large
rivers. It can be minimized only by weather forecasts several days or even weeks
in advance.
Retarding Basins
The type of outlet selected depends on the storage characteristics of the reservoir
and the nature of the flood problem. Generally the ungated sluiceway functioning
as an orifice is preferable because its discharge equation [Q Cd A2 gh ] results
1/ 2
in relatively greater throttling of flow when the reservoir is nearly full than would
a spillway operating as a weir. A simple spillway is normally undesirable because
storage below the crest of the spillway cannot be used. However, a spillway for
emergency discharge of a flood exceeding the design magnitude of the outlets is
necessary in any case.
The discharge capacity of the outlet works for a retarding basin with full
reservoir should equal the maximum flow the channel downstream can pass
without causing serious flood damage. The reservoir capacity must equal the flow
volume of the design flood less the volume of water released during the flood. As
a flood occurs, the reservoir fills and the discharge increases until the flood has
passed and the inflow has become equal to outflow. After this time, water is
automatically withdrawn from the reservoir until the stored water is completely
discharged.
Small streams rise so rapidly that it would be difficult to operate storage
reservoirs effectively. Moreover, the retarding basin assures the drawdown of the
reservoir after a flood and prevents use of the reservoir for conservation purposes
at the expense of flood control. Much of the land below the maximum water level
in the reservoirs will be inundated only occasionally and can be successfully used
for agriculture, although no permanent habitation can be permitted on this land.
Land near the highest reservoir elevation will be flooded so infrequently that it can
be farmed with almost no risk. Thus usually only a small amount of land is
permanently removed from use by the construction of retarding basins.
LEVEES AND FLOOD WALLS
One of the oldest and most widely used methods of protecting land from
floodwater is to erect a barrier preventing overflow. Levees and flood walls are
essentially longitudinal dams erected roughly parallel to a river rather than across
its channel. A levee is an earth dike, while a flood wall is usually of masonry
construction. In general, levees and flood walls must satisfy the same structural
criteria as regular dams.
Levees are most frequently used for flood mitigation because they can be built at
relatively low cost of materials available at the site. Levees are usually built of
material excavated from borrow pits paralleling the levee line. The material
should be placed in layers and compacted, with the least pervious material along
the riverside of the levee. Usually there is no suitable material for a core, and most
levees are homogeneous embankments.
Because of the flat side slopes of levees, a levee of any considerable height
requires a very large base width. Real estate costs for levees may be reasonable in
rural areas, but in cities it is often difficult to obtain enough land for earth dikes.
In this case concrete flood walls may be a preferable solution. Flood walls are
designed to withstand the hydrostatic pressure (including uplift) exerted by the
water when at design flood level. If the wall is backed by an earth fill, it must also
serve as a retaining wall against the earth pressures when stages are low.
Effect of Levees on River Stages
Levees restrict the channel width by preventing flow on the flood plain, and this
results in increased stages in the leveed reach. Channel improvements, which
usually accompany levee construction, reduce frictional flow resistance, which
may offset some or all of this increase in stage. If stages in the leveed reach are
increased, stages will also be higher upstream and downstream from the leveed
reach. The net result of levee construction depends very much on the physical
characteristics of the situation. Usually, however, levee construction and
associated flood mitigation works result in a general increase in flood stages along
a river unless reservoirs or extensive channel improvements are provided.
Flood Bypasses
A flood bypass, sometimes referred to as a floodway, is created by diversion
works and topography that permit excess water in a river or stream to be directed
into a depression that will convey the floodwater across land that can tolerate
flooding. During flood stage, floodwater leaves the river at controlled weirs (i.e.,
spillways) and flows into and through the Bypass, which is a natural lowland. By
this means the flow in the main channel of the river is reduced. The bypass not
only conveys water but also stores a substantial volume of water temporarily, thus
serving as a large shallow reservoir. By proving an additional outlet for water
from upstream, the stage is reduced upstream of the weirs for some distance.
Opportunities for the construction of bypasses are limited by the topography of
the valley and the availability of low-value land that can be used for the bypass. A
bypass is ordinarily used only during major floods, and the land in a bypass may
be used for agriculture, although usually no fixed improvements of any value are
permitted in the bypass area.
Summary
In general, the steps in the design of a flood-mitigation project are as follows:
Determine the project design flood and the flood characteristics of the area.
Define the areas to be protected and, on the basis of a field survey, determine the
flood damages which can be expected at various stages.
Determine the possible methods of flood protection. If reservoirs or floodways are
considered feasible, select possible sites and determine the physical characteristics
of these sites.
Design the necessary facilities for each method of mitigation in sufficient detail to
permit cost estimates and an analysis of their effect on flood frequency or stage-
damage relations.
Select the facility or combination of facilities that offer the maximum net benefits.
Evaluate the social and environmental impacts of the project and consider
alternatives that maximize the positive impacts and minimize the negative impacts
in these areas.
Prepare a detailed report setting forth the possibilities explored, the protection
recommended, and the degree of protection that will be provided.
