Laserfiche WebLink
3-5 <br />5. Costs should be compared to the flood control benefits received <br />and the extent of flooding problems downstream. <br />6. Other costs which should also be considered include loss of government <br />revenues by leaving areas undeveloped, maintenance expenses, and <br />associated development and construction costs. <br />A survey of residents in the Atlanta area living adjacent to or downstream <br />of fifteen small detention basins was made to document some of their perceptions <br />related to these facilities. <br />1. Almost half did not know that a detention basin existed in the <br />immediate area where they lived. <br />2. Twenty-eight percent indicated that no water accumulated in the <br />detention area after hard rains. <br />3. Only 12 percent of the respondents that •lived downstream from detention <br />i <br />' basins indicated that the facility had decreased their drainage problems. <br />4. Five percent felt that the basins had aggrevated local drainage and <br />flood problems. <br />5. Most respondents felt the basins were having no effect on drainage and <br />flooding problems. <br />:� 6. The problems mentioned most frequently were poor appearance of the <br />detention basin, silt and trash accumulation, concern for children's <br />safety, mosquitos, rats, snakes, and foul odors. <br />7. Seventy percent did not know who was responsible for maintenance, the <br />rest thought the city or county was responsible. This is somewhat <br />surprising since most of the basins studied are located on private property <br />where the responsibility has been given by the counties to adjacent <br />(/� , property owners. <br />