My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD05639
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
FLOOD05639
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:49:47 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 1:41:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Larimer
Community
Estes Park, Loveland
Stream Name
Big Thompson
Basin
South Platte
Title
What People Did During the Big Thompson Flood
Date
8/1/1977
Prepared For
UDFCD
Prepared By
Eve Gruntfest
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />11i <br /> <br />What People Did During the Big Thompson Flood* <br /> <br />The Larimer County Sheriff's Depar'tment and several canyon <br />residents estimate that more than 2500 people were in the Big Thompson <br />Canyon the night of the flood, July 31,1976. These included 600 full- <br /> <br />time residents, approximately 1200 part-.time residents, and many tourists. <br /> <br />One hundred thirty-nine people died in the flood and several are still <br /> <br />missing. <br /> <br />The purpose of this study is to an,~lyze the behavior patterns <br />which were adopted at the time of the flood, and to apply that knowledge <br /> <br />to the improvement of warning system design for Front Range communities <br /> <br />vulnerable to flash flooding. Comparisons are made between the actions <br /> <br />Of the survivors and non-survivors and the warned Oind non-warned popu- <br /> <br />lations. Variables which influenced the! choice of action are E!xamined. <br /> <br />These variables include location prior to the flood, action taken, group <br /> <br /> <br />context, location in the canyon, kind of warning re!ceived (if clny) , and <br /> <br /> <br />number of people in a group. Warning characteristics such as source, <br /> <br /> <br />mode, number and content are also discussed. <br /> <br />Information was obtained through informal interviews with canyon <br /> <br />residents, county officials, relief agency personnel and out-of-state <br /> <br />residents who were visiting the canyon at the time of the flood. <br /> <br />Additional information was available in newspaper Oiccounts, government <br />agency reports and in literature on flash floods and warning sjlstems. <br />The results indicate that climbing the canyon wall was the best <br />action to have adopted, and that doing nothing different or taking no <br /> <br />action at all were the worst in terms of survival chances, Those who were <br /> <br />driving alone through the canyon ran the highest rjisk. <br /> <br />* Research 'for this paper was funded by DenVE!r Urban Dra'inage <br />and Flood Control District. The viewpo'int of this study is th;~t of <br />the author and does not reflect the opinion of the Urban Drainage and <br />Flood Control District. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.