My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02598
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02598
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:17:23 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:17:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/18/1974
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes
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.
/
77
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 />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />small structures. say a tool shed. that is in somebody's yard. or other <br />small structures that in our opinion would not have any significant <br />effect upon enlarging the floodplain. <br /> <br />Mr. Fetcher: We also considered the question of utilities in this <br />area. You mentioned structures. but there are other cases of under- <br />ground utilities and I don't know whether they would be affected or <br />not. but I just fill it in. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Underground facilities will not have any effect upon it. <br />It would be permissible to do anything which does not change the <br />boundaries of the floodplain. That means a lot of things can be done. <br />Structures not occupying the surface will not change the boundaries of <br />the floodplain. <br /> <br />The other thing that we had to consider in the floodplain regulation <br />is debris. Actually. the preponderance of flood damages in the 1965 <br />flood here in Denver were caused by debris. That is. they were caused <br />by objects being washed from upstream which dammed the bridges across . <br />the South Platte River. Once you create a dam the elevation of the <br />water goes up almost instantaneously and it spreads over a much greater <br />area. So the principal damage that occurred in 1965 was because of <br />debris. It wasn't debris when it started. It was homes. trucks and <br />particularly mobile homes. They acted as dams in the river right at <br />the bridges. There probably would not have been a bridge in the entire <br />metropolitan area go out had it not been for this large debris that was <br />carried down and ledged against the bridge abutments and the pilings. <br />Bridges are not built to take great lateral force. Debris is the big <br />factor that we had to consider in the use of floodplains. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: Fred. I have another question. Hugh's part I think is <br />'well taken. Can they still go ahead on ditches? I think about so many <br />areas where the ditch is going to be far more of a problem than the <br />river. I think in my area the floodplain caused by the ditches is far <br />worse than the floodplain in the river. As it is. we are not covering <br />that at all. Right. Larry? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: That is not covered under this particular regulation. <br />There is a liability on the part of the ditch owners if they cause <br />flood damages. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: I have seen it happen. I think of those ditches in the <br />Sterling area that take water out in the Merino area and drop it right <br />into the Sterling area. This sometimes causes flood damages. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: There is one indirect way to get at it. Virtually all of <br />these ditches will cross a natural watercourse. In crossing that <br />natural watercourse they will have an effect which can be computed in <br />a floodplain study. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: Well. I am sure they can be. My point is. if there <br />isn't some way or some start that shouldn't be made on that at the same <br /> <br />-9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.