Laserfiche WebLink
<br />V-2 <br /> <br /> <br />would require relocation of large numbers of dwellings and would not <br />provide flood protection where required. <br /> <br />FLOOD CONTROL ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />Due to the variety of topography and difference in degree of devel- <br />opment, a wide range of flood control alternatives were considered. <br />To describe the alternatives more fully, the stream length was divided <br />into four sections. The flood control alternatives and recommendations <br />for each section are summarized in Table 3 later in this section. <br /> <br />Area I <br /> <br />Area I extends from Eldorado Springs to Highway 93. The relatively <br />undisturbed nature of the area lends itself to alternatives which will have <br />minimum impact on the immediate area. <br /> <br />The alternatives considered for this area are major flood control <br />dams, flood water retarding structures, flood plain zoning, acquisition <br />of flood plain lands, flood insurance, flood proofing, and a flood warning <br />system. Each of these alternatives will be discussed briefly. Costs <br />include overhead and contingency items and are adjusted to reflect 1973 <br />prices. They include costs for land acquisition only when noted. <br /> <br />Large Flood Control Dam. A large flood control dam could be <br />constructed in the upper reaches of the drainage basin between <br />Gros s Reservoir and the Denver Water Department! s diversion <br />structure. For analysis purposes, a site just upstream from <br />the diversion structure was chosen. The dam would control <br />about 63 percent of the drainage area upstream from Eldorado <br />Springs. If properly sized, this reservoir could reduce the peak <br />flows during the 100-year return interval flood at the lower end <br />of the basin by approximately 2,000 cfs. Due to the presence of <br />Gross Reservoir, it is doubtful that this flood control dam could <br />also serve as a multi-purpose water supply dam. Therefore, it <br />was assumed that the capacity would be approximately 3,000 acre- <br />feet, primarily for flood control purposes. The outlet structure <br />would be designed to pass the normal flows in the creek and to <br />retain the flood flows until any danger of flooding downstream was <br />eliminated. The cost of such a structure is estimated to be <br />$5,800,000. It would provide benefits of about $600,000. <br /> <br />Flood Water Retarding Structures. <br />has a program of developing small <br />temporarily retain high flows near <br /> <br />The Soil Conservation Service <br />reservoirs which function to <br />the point of origin. With this <br />