My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00453
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00453
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:50:18 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:38:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
2/26/1975
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Resolution
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />area in two categories; one being the residential area and the other <br />as the nonresidential area. We had it defined in terms of both depth <br />and velocity. We were less restrictive in the nonresidential area than <br />we were in the residential area. We foresaw the problem but we wanted <br />the various jurisdictions to look at it. Most of them objected to a <br />dual-type of classification. Obviously, this increases the engineering <br />problem in attempting to delineate two different types of areas within <br />the floodplains. It presented a considerable problem of one, the 1 <br />expense of delineating two different areas, and secondly, of the admin~ <br />istration. The further problem is that zoning regulations change from; <br />time to time. It is entirely possible that what is a residential area <br />today might at some future time be classified as a nonresidential area, <br />or vice-versa. <br /> <br />For simplicity, we tried to compromise the various viewpoints. What <br />we came up with was a new definition of a low hazard area, which we <br />described as an area in which the depth of an intermediate regional <br />flood would not exceed one and one-half feet. We did some analyses <br />based upon floodplain studies that have already been completed. We <br />.~ound that at least in ten percent of the cases the occupation of the <br />-low hazard area would in fact enlarge the floodplain, but in the great <br />majority of the cases there was no significant effect upon the enlarge- <br />ment of a floodplain. What we have actually done here is to arbitrarily <br />." ,s.1=ate that the occupation of an area in which the water will not exceed <br />'dii;,depth of one and one-half feet will not have a significant effect <br />upon the remaining floodplain. However, this is sustainable by com- <br />petent engineering data. It is known that when a water depth exceeds <br />one and one-half feet it will move fairly heavy objects, such as auto- <br />mobiles, trailer homes and what have you. So the depth of one and one- <br />half feet was actually based on solid engineering data. <br /> <br />Mr. Kroeger: Larry, you had the matter of velocity involved the last <br />'time too. Have you dropped that? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: We dropped the velocity because of the great difficulties <br />of specifically identifying velocity areas on a map. The whole purpose <br />of the floodplain designations is to permit ready identification of the <br />areas on a map, which then the cities and counties could show to their <br />citizens. They can determine then whether a particular house is within <br />or without a flood hazard area. The velocity problem is extremely <br />difficult to compute because of the many varied geographical and topo- <br />graphical features of a floodplain. We just gave it up as a practical <br />matter. We did prescribe in the regulation that in the event that the <br />velocity exceeds three feet per second that additional floodproofing <br />would be required. That is the best way we could take care of the <br />velocity problems. <br /> <br />Mr. Kroeger: Does anybody else want to comment? Yes, Herb. <br /> <br />, , <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: Larry, I do have two questions. One is one page 2, <br />under definitions, designated floodplain requires prior concurrence of <br />the Colorado Water Conservation Board. As you know about it since you <br />were there, in 1965 we had a big flood. The counties in my area believe <br />that the outline of that flood should be used as a basis for designating <br /> <br />-3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.