FLOOD00689

• Designation Number: 136
• County: Arapahoe
• Community: Littleton
• Stream Name: Slaughterhouse Gulch
• Title: Major Drainageway Planning - Slaughterhouse Gulch, Littleton
• Date: 5/1/1974
• Designation Date: 5/1/1979
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Floodplain Report/Masterplan

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

to repair or replace severely damaged or destroyed struc-
tures. This would have a further effect of adversely
affecting property values within the zoned district.

This alternate would only alleviate potential flood dam-
age below a five-year flood between Prince Street and the
South Platte River. Larger floods would overflow Prince
Street west of the South Platte River due to the restric-
tion of the five-year capacity culvert.

With the adverse effects of the proposed Alternate No.3 for
the South Tributary, the Environmental Impact Statement lists
as adverse effects of the recommendation:

Again, noise levels during construction would be a short
term adverse effect.

It is also felt that implementation of the interim report
recommendation would have an adverse effect in view of
the more positive flood prevention solutions found in
Alternates No.2 and 3.

It is important to keep in mind the fact that the implementa-
tion of flood plain zoning and flood plain management regulations
is a positive step in minimizing flood damages. Flood plain
regulations are not measures which prevent the use of flood
prone areas, but do regulate their use to the extent that
existing uses will not be perpetuated within the flood plain
area over a period of time. If structural measures were to be
implemented in a reach to reduce the potential flood damage, it is
certain that those improvements would be paid for over a similar
period of time to achieve essentially the same objective at the
end of that period. For regulatory measures, there are no major
public costs. Therefore, the comparison between the two
approaches must weigh the chance of flood damages occurring
to the private property, at no cost to the City but at some
cost to the private property owner, who possibly would acquire
flood insurance, against the cost that the City would have to
pay to retire bonded indebtedness or to recoup tax monies spent
on immediate drainage improvements. Therefore, we should
look at both measures as being positive steps in the implementa-
tion of a viable flood prevention program, each obtaining the
same objective over a period of time, with substantially different
cost requirements.

The Environmental Impact Statement indicates that all viable solu-
tions presented have both positive and negative aspects. These
aspects, however, had to be considered with all other data pre-
sented with the alternatives in selecting the more prominent approach.

D. ALTERNATIVE SELECTION

The selection of the alternative for more detail study and design
was done in a very thorough and comprehensive manner. The Interim

VI-9