FLOOD01851 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A-2 Mr. Ben Urbonas, P.E. April 6, 1982 Page 2 Mr. Ben Urbonas, P.E. April 6, 1982 Page 3 1. In drainage matters, a municipality (Golden) or county (Jefferson) can be expected to be treated like a private party. 2 Farnham, Water and Water Rights, pp. 975 and 977, adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court in City of Boulder v. Boulder & White Rock Ditch Co., 73 Colo. 426, 216 P. 553 (1923). 2. Between the Plant and Washington Avenue Bridge, the inundation of City facilities and a residential neighborhood. This is caused by too small openings under the Washington Street Bridge. 3. Between the Washington Avenue Bridge and the Ford Street Bridge the same condition exists, primarily because the Ford Street Bridge opening is too small. 4. Downstream of thp. Ford Street Bridge is a mobile home park which will also be inundated by the l00-year flood. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDED PLAN(S): The engineer recom- mends at SECTION XI a long term solution and a short term or interim plan. As part of the overall recommendations, a basin wide flood warning system (such as on Boulder Creek in the City of Boulder and County of Boulder) is recom- mended. This is part of an overall "notification" program which, in my opinion, is necessary once the hazard has been identified and designated (namely, the 100-year event). Further, as part of the interim plan, flood proofing and participation in the Federal Flood Insurance program is recommended. Although, in my opinion, there are no legal requirements for such actions, these interim measures are cost-effective and are important elements of a City's storm- water management program. The structural recommendations by the engineer - (a) rip rap protection along the water treatment plant berm, (b) increasing the carrying capacity of the channel from just downstream of u.s. 6 to the Coors plant, (c) making substantial bridge improvements at Ford Street and Washington Avenue, and (d) rebuilding the berm from Washington Avenue Bridge to Ford Street Bridge - are all improvements to existing conditions which would be designed to improve current conditions while "not sending water down in a manner or quantity to do more harm than formerly" on downstream owners. (Hankins v. Borland) 2. It is also true that the owner of upper lands has an easement over lower lands for drainage of surface water flowing in its natural course. Ambrosio v. Perl Mack, 143 Colo. 49, 55, 351 P.2d 803, 806 (1960). 3. Natural drainage conditions may be altered by an upper owner provided the water is not sent down in a manner or quantity to do more harm than formerly. Hankins v. Borland, 163 Colo. 575, 431 P.2d 1007 (1967). 4. Therefore, any improvements upstream must be made taking into consideration the outlet capability downstream. (Long line of case law. ) 5. Any drainage improvement built by a munici- pal i ty must be maintained. (Long 1 ine of case law. ) FLOOD HISTORY: The engineer has done a good job of describing the flood history of Clear Creek at SECTION VI. PROBLEM AREAS (Reach 1 - Upstream Golden City Limit to Tucker Gulch) The engineer has set these problem areas out at SECTION VI, pages VI-5 and VI-6, namely: 1. Overflowing of dike which separates Clear Creek from the City's raw water ponds and 1.5 foot flooding of filter plant by the 100-year event.