FLOOD06542 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PAST FLOODS whe~e flooding w~s often more extensl~e than In Aspen. In general, infonnatlon on p~st floods Is based on newspaper accounts, Inte~~lews WiTh lOngTIme resIdents of the a~ea, and flow data publ ished In U.S. Geological Survey water supply papers. SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL FLooOS FLOOOOESCRIPTIONS Aspen Is known TO have ~ long hisTOry of floods, the earlIeST of record occurring In 1880--1 ye~r ~f1"er the city was est~bl Ished. Large floods ~Iso occurred In 1884, 1914, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1921, and 1957. In general, the flood thaT occu~~ed In June-July 1917 Is consIdered The most se~ere known In The Aspen area. DurIng that flood, The Ro~r- Ing Fo~k RI~er had an InSTantaneous peak flow of 3,170 cubIc feet pe~ seoond. Major ea~ly-summer SnOWmelT floods also occurred In the Aspen area In 1918 and 1921, when InStanTaneouS peak flows reached 2,380 and 2,310 cubIc feeT pe~ seccnd, respecTively. I n general, the 1917 and 1918 floods were ~ery sImilar In magnItude. The most recent flood occurred In June and July 1957, Flow durIng that flood cresTed aT 1,910 cubic feet per second on 29 June. SO/I'le flooding occurred In June 1971 when flow In the Roa~lng Fork c~ested aT 1,020 cubic feet per second, but damage was minor. Records a~allable for CaSTle C~eek show f lows of 890 and 1,090 cubic feet pe~ second, respecTI~ely, In 1917 and 19\8. Flow records for HunTer Creek du~ing major flood periods are not a~allable, , I i ~ITh the exception of flow daTa for the RoarIng Fork RI~er at Aspen, little Is known about the flood of June-July 1917. Streamflow records show that flows greater than 1,000 cubic feet per second cOn- Tinued fo~ a period of 28 days, and flows of about 2,000 cubIc feet per second were contInuous for 5 days. Flows greater than 1,500 cubic feeT per second contInued fo~ a period of 16 days. During the 1918 flood, flows greater than 1,000 cubIc feeT per second continued for 24 days. Flows greate~ th"n 1,500 and 2,000 cubIc feet pe~ second were continuous fo~ periods of 16 days and 3 days, respecTively, As may be Judged from The foregoIng, and, as pre~lously stated, the 1917 and 1918 floods were ~e~y similar In magniTude, differing p~lnclpally In their instantaneous peak flows. Newspaper accounts of The 1918 floods show that numerous bridges In and around Aspen were deSTroyed o~ serIously damaged, and that, due to destructIon of st~eam crossIngs In OTher localiTies, the Town was cut off except for The ~allroad. At The peak of the flood, bridges stili sTanding had 2 or more feet of swIftly f lowing water o~er the decking. A pIpeline carryIng HunTer Creek water to the TOWn was washed out and the community had to get along on about one-half normal supply for almost 2 months. For a tl1llO, floodwaters threatened dest~uctlon of the Castle C~eek WaTer main and totallossofmllnlclpalwaTersupply. Wreckage of destroyed bridges lodged agaInst and Threaterted destruction of oThe~ bridges, and great effort was expended In f!oodflghtlng to sategua~d the structures Threatened.lnAspen,theeastendofMalnStrll@fwasundennlnedand washed away. Cotrrnerclal ST~uctu~es In this a~ei'J were Threatened, i'Jnd hOOlElS In low-lyIng areas were surrounded by floodwater. Howe~er, lIttle ~sidentlal damage occur~d except for lawns and Qardens. man~ of whIch FLOOD RECORDS i- , , , I Information on the earlIer hlsTorlci'J1 flOOdS Th/lt hll~e occurred In the study area Is ~ery limited because streamflow records were not being made, eye-witness a~counTS are not now a~allabre, and conTempor- i'Jry records are practically nonexisTent. Specific info~matlon on more recenT floods, except for streamflow data, is also ~ery limITed because Aspen had a ~ery small population and was largely undeveloped at the time major floods occurred. News llccounts of early floods are non- >:!xlstent or ~>:!ry und",tallf;'d, and tjo not co~",r fl"",jlng In n,rill "'rM~ " "