Laserfiche WebLink
<br />development must store their increased runoff as a result of that <br />development. This will make it impossible for them to comply with that <br />regulation. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Only if they enlarge the downstream floodplain. <br /> <br />Mr. Blatchley: Well, we are talking about any major floodplain, whether <br />it be dry or wet. <br /> <br />II <br /> <br />Mr. Kroe~er: You have to run that one by me one more time, if you would <br />please. <br /> <br />Mr. Blatchley: A number of communities, cities and counties have a <br />regulation tfiat any subdivision work or any work is going to increase <br />the runoff from the land and that they must store any increased runoff <br />from that land over what occurred historically. In other words, it is <br />irrigated land now, it absorbs most of the rain, but if you put pavement <br />there it will run off in an increased amount, so theoretically you are <br />supposed to store the increased amount of runoff. <br /> <br />Mr. Kroe~er: How does that relate to the Narrows Dam? <br /> <br />Mr. Blatchley: Well, ignoring the Narrows for the moment, it doesn't <br />have anything to do with the Narrows Dam. The only way you can usually <br />store is by detention ponds. This is a structure that will increase <br />the floodplain within that particular gulch or stream or whatever it <br />might be. This would be primarily in municipal areas. It would be <br />rather difficult to get around both regulations. What Larry says about <br />the designated area may take care of it, but I am not convinced that <br />it will because there is no limitation as to where these designated areas <br />are going to be. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: We can see a number of things in here that need better <br />language. This almost drove us ct'azy trying to figure out all the <br />angles. Right after the law was passed, the chief of our flood control <br />section took one look at it and submitted his resignation. <br /> <br />(laughter) <br /> <br />Mr. Blatchle:-t: Well, I will have tried to come up with some ideas along <br />this line. 1 am not trying to increase your burden, but the other <br />thing that I think falls in the same line is if a diversion structure <br />for an irrigation ditch is removed by either a flood or by deterioration <br />this would also come under the scrutiny of this regulation? <br /> <br />Ye., I would "y if it i. inere..leg . flood boz.rd it II <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Blatchle~: Presumably if they put it in exactly it wouldn't increase <br />the flood ha2ard, but if they put it back so it would not wash out it <br />probably would increase the flood hazard, I would think. This is <br />another thing that maybe should be dovered in the regulation. Of course, <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: <br />would. <br /> <br />-22- <br />