1 / 13

LEVEES, EMBANKMENTS, DIKES

LEVEES, EMBANKMENTS, DIKES FINDING COMMON GROUND BETWEEN THE FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT CULTURES OF THE USA, ENGLAND AND THE NETHERLANDS ISFD4, Toronto 7 May 2008 Jaap Flikweert. Background. Involvement in FRM in various countries  Notice differences  Why? Culture, Geography, History

jamesphelan
Download Presentation

LEVEES, EMBANKMENTS, DIKES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LEVEES, EMBANKMENTS, DIKES • FINDING COMMON GROUND BETWEEN THE FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT CULTURES OF THE USA, ENGLAND AND THE NETHERLANDS • ISFD4, Toronto • 7 May 2008 • Jaap Flikweert

  2. Background • Involvement in FRM in various countries •  Notice differences •  Why? • Culture, Geography, History • Or Coincidence? • No thorough scientific study… • …just discussions at the coffee machine • Work in progress! • Thanks to Mathijs van Ledden(Haskoning Inc, New Orleans)

  3. Lay out of presentation • 9 Aspects: • Nature and level of flood risk • Legal arrangements • Role of insurance • How to manage the risk • Events driving developments • Dealing with future changes • Structural flood risk management • Asset management • Public perception of flood risk • Conclusions

  4. Nature and level of flood risk • NL: • Defining feature, national issue • Infinite x Infinitesimal =? • EN: • One of the important issues • Variability, regional issue • £ 1.3 billion / year (2005)(C$ 2.5 billion) • USA: • One of the important issues • Variability, regional issue • $ 4.5 billion / year (1991-2000)(C$ 5 billion) • EN/USA more comparable graphic: USGS

  5. Legal arrangements & funding • NL: • Legal standards and roles • Ministry of infrastructure • €500 million C$ 785 million • EN: • Permissive powers (legal) • Department for the Environment(formerly Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) • £600 - £800 million  C$ 1.2 – 1.6 billion • USA: • Insurance & certification • Department of Defense • $280 million  C$ 285 million (USACE, excl improvement works; New Orleans $15 billion) • Very different; culture, but also history

  6. Role of insurance • NL: • None – 1953 event (1.5 billion ~ C$ 10 billion) • The state in practice • Some debate • EN: • Private insurance if < 1/75 per year • Important lobby  trigger for risk reduction • USA: • Driving force, legal basis • Federal backed insurance • Impact on many aspects of flood risk management • NL different due to geography & history. EN / USA: culture?

  7. How to manage the risk • NL: • History: structural (defences+source control) • Recent: evacuation & land use • EN: • Combination of structural & non-structural • Emphasis on development planning • USA: • Defence plus evacuation • Choice of measures driven by insurability • General move to balanced portfolio

  8. Events driving developments • NL: • Throughout history • 1953 • EN: • 1953: Thames defences & warning • 1998: change of focus • USA: • 1927 Mississippi flood • Various hurricanes • Now starting to learn from events elsewhere

  9. Dealing with future changes • NL: • Existential question • For now, technically solvable • Commissions at work • EN: • Very explicit • Government led studies • Catchment & shoreline planning • USA: • Sea level rise in design & strategy • NO: subsidence at equal rate • Each in his own way

  10. Structural flood risk management • NL: • Legal safety standard • Detailed & complete guidance • EN: • Indicative standards • Benefit / cost plus ‘Outcome measures’ • Limited guidance • USA: • Up to 1% per year (insurance) • Certification requirements drive design • Three different mechanisms

  11. Asset management • NL: • Large professional dedicated organisations • Legal roles, but ‘how’ is up to asset manager • EN: • One national organisation • Detailed strict procedures • USA: • USACE and others • Good management is criterium for certification • Guidance from USACE • Paradox design guidance – rules for asset mgt

  12. Public perception • NL: • Paradox: awareness, trust & expectation • Recent changes f(Katrina, climate change) • EN: • Growing awareness (events & communication) • Natural risk? • USA: • Well aware • Limited confidence in authorities • Strongly driven by events

  13. Conclusions • UK and USA more comparable; NL as extreme reference • Optimisation problem Performance / Risk / Cost: • NL: fixed performance standard, minimise cost • EN & USA: fixed budget, minimise risk • Each their own recipe for FRM, based on history, geography, culture • Events as opportunities for readjustment? • Invitation to extend analysis

More Related