Resolution_2025 Kittitas County Hazard Mitigation Plan

Home Browse Search

2025 Hazard Mitigation Plan Kittitas County, Washington Chapter 3: Community Profile 52 • More information is needed on flood risk to support the concept of a risk based analysis for capital projects. • There needs to be a sustained effort to gather historical damage data (e.g., high water marks on structures and damage reports) to measure the cost-effectiveness of future mitigation projects. • Ongoing flood hazard mitigation will require funding from multiple sources. • There needs to be a coordinated hazard mitigation effort between jurisdictions affected by the flood hazard in the County. • Floodplain residents need to continue to be educated about flood preparedness and the resources available during and after floods. • The concept of residual risk should be considered in the design of future capital flood control projects and should be communicated with residents living within the floodplain. • The promotion of flood insurance as a means of protecting private property owners from the economic impacts of frequent flood events should continue. • Existing floodplain compatible uses (e.g., agricultural and open space) need to be maintained. There is constant pressure to convert these existing uses to more intense uses within the planning area during times of moderate to high growth. • The economy affects a jurisdiction’s ability to manage its floodplains. Budget cuts and personnel losses can strain resources needed to support floodplain management. • A buildable-lands analysis that looks at vacant lands and their designated land use would be a valuable tool in helping decision makers make informed decisions about future development. • The risk associated with flooding due to canal failure is unknown at this time. Data on this risk needs to be gathered to better support communities’ preparedness and response efforts. • Federally regulated dams have an adequate level of oversight and sophistication in the development of Emergency Action Plans for public notification in the unlikely event of failure. However, the protocol for notification of downstream citizens of imminent failure needs to be tied to local emergency response planning. • Mapping for federally regulated dams is already required and available; however, mapping for non-federal regulated dams that estimates inundation depths is needed to better assess the risk associated with dam failure from these facilities. • Most dam failure mapping required at federal levels requires determination of the probable maximum flood. While the probable maximum flood represents a worst case scenario, it is generally the event with the lowest probability of occurrence. For non-federal-regulated dams, mapping of dam failure scenarios that are less extreme than the probable maximum flood but have a higher probability of occurrence can be valuable to emergency managers and community officials downstream of these facilities. This type of mapping can illustrate areas potentially impacted by more frequent events to support emergency response and preparedness. • The concept of residual risk associated with structural flood control projects should be considered in the design of capital projects and the application of land use regulations. • Addressing security concerns and the need to inform the public of the risk associated with dam failure is a challenge for public officials. • Dam and levee failure could result in loss of homes, businesses, and infrastructure (e.g., transportation corridors and irrigation facilities), thus lowering the overall tax base for the