FLOOD02473 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I was unable to reach Mike Cervi, but spoke to Susie Martinez, the wife ofTino (sp??) Martinez, the ranch manager, Memories were no longer clear, but she recalled that the gauge at their house (and probably the other gauge down by the Johnson's) were both full to the top, Based on nearby reports, it appears extremely likely that rainfall greatly exceeded 6" at the southern location. This is useful information with good confidence, but is not an actual rain report since the gauges spilled. Jaeger Fanns (Dan or Nathan) 52249 WCR 149, Stoneham T 9N R 56W Sec. 8 SE Original rain report: 15" source unknown I found and spoke with Dan Jaeger and his new bride Christy (daughter of the Blakes), They were both very familiar with the storm, and Christy had helped her mother take the rain gauge readings at the Blake fann two miles to the northeast. Dan was very helpful, but simply remembers that their small six-inch capacity cone-shaped rain gauge had totally filled and spilled so that no reading was taken at their fann. He recalls no buckets or tanks that may have been out and empty for measuring the rain. His brother was out in the field and not available to talk to. His assumption was that the 15 inch report credited to their location may have been the reading taken at the Blakes. The storm appeared to hit both places about equally, and he had driven to the Blakes in his truck during the storm to bring them a shop-vac to try to sweep up water from their basement. He found the road nearly impassable at that time, but I failed to note what time that was. He suggested not including the 15 inch report in the storm tabulation, so confidence assigned "D." John Dunning 75473 WCR 100, Stoneham T 9N R56 W Sec 27 Original report: 4.0" in table, 4.5" on map from gauge John was driving home that night from Fort Morgan and did not get home until flood waters receded. He was confident that 4.5 inches had fallen, but he had not written it down. He had no record of what had fallen the previous day, Upon visual inspection, the rain gauge appeared to be in good shape with a capacity of nearly six inches, but the 4.5 inch total seemed too low with respect to neighboring reports. But with no other information, I have no grounds for rejecting this report. ' Confidence "B." C. 1. Frank 26667 CR 7, Merino (Logan County) T ION R 55W Sec 21 Original report: 5.5" from gauge His gauge only held four inches and was full to the top. Therefore, the daily total should have been reported as 4". The 5.5" report given to the survey team included the 1. 5 inches that fell the previous evening (July 28). As we talked, his memory changed and he said that 2.5" late on the 28th for a storm total of6.5". He did not consult any written records when talking to me. Although the gauge was full on the morning of the 30th, he believed that very little had spilled based on the amount of flooding on his hay fields and roads, which he described as "minimal:" By comparison, the flood of 1965 following 9 13