|
<br />ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO, KANSAS, NEW MEXICO D3
<br />
<br />1826, and in 1844 "a high-water mark of this flood at Pueblo was reputedly
<br />12 feet higher than the high-water mark of the flood of 1921, the greatest
<br />flood of record there." Even allowing for the vagueness of some information
<br />concerning the earlier floods, evidence is strong that incredible, devastating,
<br />and catastrophic floods have occurred in the past. They will occur again,
<br />perhaps next year, perhaps centuries hence.
<br />Authorities agree that no one measure will solve the problem of flood
<br />damage, but they disagree on the effectiveness of the various schemes to
<br />reduce flood damage, Big dams, small dams, channel improvements, water-
<br />shed management, warning systems, and selective flood-plain use all have
<br />their proponents. Each measure has its advantages and disadvantages,
<br />which have been discussed many times by many authors. Some combination
<br />of measures, rather than anyone alone, will most likely give optimum
<br />results. A comprehensive flood-control or damage-alleviation plan requires
<br />participation by many individuals and agencies and is almost never fool-
<br />proof. However, the single measure that possibly is the most efficacious -
<br />selective use of the flood plain - can be employed by a single individual.
<br />Complete evacuation of flood plains may be too drastic; planned use,
<br />recognizing inherent risks, is feasible. Flood-plain management for reduc-
<br />ing flood damage has received increasing attention and deserves more. The
<br />June 1965 flood in the Arkansas River valley below John Martin Dam il-
<br />lustrates the limitations of a single "flood-control" structure. Although all
<br />flood water from the upstream area was stored in the reservoir, serious
<br />flooding began less than 3 miles downstream and increased in severity to
<br />what was aptly described as "devastation" in the towns of Granada and
<br />Holly, about 34 and 45 miles, respectively, downstream from the reservoir.
<br />Even the most enthusiastic proponent of flood,control structures, channel
<br />improvements, or watershed management hardly would advocate constuc-
<br />tion of all the facilities that would have been required to control the flows of
<br />the many tributary streams. The "head-for-the-hills" technique may be the
<br />only effective measure to deal with such floods.
<br />Planned use of the flood plains, based on all available flood data, in-
<br />cluding those in this report, will help prevent unexpected financial loss and
<br />danger to lives by making new development in endangered areas compatible
<br />with the degree of flooding that may occur. Lessons learned by residents of
<br />the areas flooded, including normally "dry" creek flood plains, may soon be
<br />forgotten, but properly documented evidence of flood stages, discharges,
<br />and areas inundated and related data can be of great value to ad-
<br />ministrators, planners, and engineers concerned with formulating zoning
<br />regulations and setting design criteria to minimize future flood losses.
<br />Unusually large floods occurred on the Arkansas River from Pueblo,
<br />Colo., to Great Bend, Kans., on the north-bank tributaries from Pueblo to
<br />Avondale, Colo., on the south,bank tributaries from Swink, Colo., to the
<br />State line, and on the Canadian River and its tributaries above Conchas
<br />
|