Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />hard times had joined in the grass-roots support of the nationwide <br />Coxey's Army march on Washington, D. C. 9 The businessmen and <br />merchants were negatively impact,~d b~f ':he dEcreased purchasing power <br />of the other groups. <br /> <br />The 1895 flood in Boulder County added to the hard times. The effect <br />of hard times cannot be evaluated completely because dollar amounts and <br />extent of property losses may have been exaggerated in order to avoid <br />taxes. The County Assessor was attempting to fill the County's tax <br />coffers with additiona I revenue at about the same tiMe period. Other <br />flood reports, such as that of 1938, may have been subject to economic <br />pressures as well. <br /> <br />REASONS FOR EVALUATING SCIENTIFIC DATA IN THE SAME MANt<ER <br /> <br />Knowledge of the scientific techniques of the time need to be considered <br />as well. Gauqes were placed on various parts of creeks; upstream <br />elevations often had no relation to the characteristics of the downstream <br />elevations. The gauges were subject to isolated local flood events, <br />which might not be representative of the actual Clrea circur.1stances. <br />Ditch or dam failure in one area could increase strC!am flow at a gau0e <br />and give the impression that a r.1ore severe flood had occurred. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The change in the slope of the banks of a creek due to previous flood <br />damage, or an alteration of the bed configuration because of increased <br />siltation or accumulation of waste, may have been among factors that <br />caused inconsistent data over tir.1e and resulted in inconclusive <br />comparison of certain floods in the past. <br /> <br />The changing use of the land itself affected other scientific <br />measurements as well. The structures that encroached upon the <br />streams and the floodplains affected the water flow. The nature of the <br />obstacles changed from time to tir.1e. Those man-made structures such <br />as bridges or modern day propane tanks caused an increased in the <br />area of the floodplain and affected the comparison of the computations <br />of water discharges. For example, although computations may have <br />been correct at the time, the comparison of two floods, such as the <br />1894 and 1921 floods in Longmont, would be affected by the changes in <br />the number of buildings and bridges constructed in the intervening <br />years. Therefore, water depth at a specific location has to be <br />considered within the entire social and environmental scene. The facts <br />cannot be considered independently. <br /> <br />In addition, the method of calculation used by hydrologists and <br />engineers has not been consistent over time or from report to report. <br />Discrepancies in the interpretation of discharge amounts, for example, <br />have occurred because of this factor. Although recent years have seen <br />an i[;1provement in this area. older records reflect this probler.1. <br /> <br />METHODOLOGY FOR USING PRIMARY SOURCES <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />SevC!ral procedures Ilave been used in <br />this study. Newspaper reports of the <br />were accompanied by the specific <br /> <br />assessing the sources used in <br />floods have been used if they <br />by-line of the reporter or <br />