Laserfiche WebLink
<br />123 <br /> <br />supphes. The Caliente Creek ALERT system data assists them in determining <br />water supply needs and reservoir feasibility. <br /> <br />Farr and Curtis <br /> <br />Reality Check <br /> <br />When the ALERT system was first brought on-line in September 1984, <br />it was anticipated that it would pay for itself the first year. The devastating <br />floods of 1983 were fresh and clear in the minds of residents and politicians. <br />Not only was the ALERT system not put to the test in 1984, but very little <br />rain fell for the next decade. During that time, watersheds dried up along <br />with the memories of Caliente Creek floods. Consequently, system priority <br />dropped as flood memories faded. In addition, the deep economic depression <br />that gripped the region fostered a succession of increasingly restricted county <br />budgets. <br />When Kern County first entered into the standard cooperative agreement <br />with the National Weather Service (NWS) for maintenance of the ALERT <br />system, the county Board of Supervisors directed that the maintenance cost <br />of the facilities be shared by the eight participating agencies, with the county <br />performing the actual maintenance. It is not clear why, but over time, for one <br />reason or another, each participant was forgiven their maintenance cost share, <br />leaving the full cost of maintenance up to the county. Unfortunately, during <br />this same period, maintenance costs began to rise. Budget pressure, shrinking <br />demand (no rain, no floods), and splitting system responsibilities all <br />conspired to reduce the maintenance effort. Maintenance became strictly <br />reactive. No calibration. No cleaning. If a unit failed, it was repaired when <br />a technician was available and was not given the highest priority. <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />1995 Floods <br /> <br />Finally, in January 1995, Caliente Creek produced its first significant <br />flood since 1983. However, imminent flooding was not recognized until flood <br />flows were sighted crossing the lower reaches of the floodplain, reducing the <br />estimated 12 hours (minimum) response time for the town of Lamont to less <br />than four hours. No warning time at all was provided to Southern Pacific <br />Railroad or Arvin-Edison. <br />A review of the ALERT system data disclosed that only one ALERT <br />system precipitation gauge indicated significant rainfall, and even that rainfall <br />was below the alarm threshold. Another gauge, which had transmitted only <br />minimal rainfall data, was later found to have had a brim full catch funnel <br />due <br /> <br />to a plugged drain. <br />